“An industry devoted to serving the public’s right to know gives twisted and evil men the means of becoming known. This problem is not obviously amenable to a solution, and it certainly is not amenable to a legal one. A regime of media regulation that would be both effective at preventing mass shootings and consistent with the American Constitution is no easier to imagine than a regime of gun regulation that would meet the same criteria.” – James Taranto (via wsj.com) [h/t Eric]
I said this in another post Saturday and I’ll say it again.
Me giving up my right to self defense through firearms because someone evil person did something bad would be like the United States giving up her armies to the United Nations because Iran did something atrocious with their army. It would be irresponsible and never pass with even the most anti war of Americans.
That said I imagine the media would crap themselves over restrictions to what they can say on the air.
So it’s not the 2A fault, its the 1A fault. Got it. Question: When does it become the shooter’s fault?
I don’t really think that is what he said.
Re-read a little slower and yeah, I missed his point the first time through.
Dan, you forgot to post this little nugget from the WSJ, too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Excellent link, RF hope you do a post about that this info
Here’s a “gun free zone” video that gave me a chuckle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y9iQRSTzofw
Both pieces really well written. I was surprised to see them in wsj.
Well written piece.
People are using their 1a rights to try and deprive me of my 2a rights. But i’m supposed to play nice and not go after their rights? Fvck that, inflict the same pain on them that they inflict on me. Finger prints, background checks, permits for a starter for all journalists. Restrictions on the length of their reports and restricted journalists free zones.
Yeah, asking the newsies to show a little compassion and stop waving bloody shirts, pumping out the shooters name 10 times a minute, and jamming microphones in the faces of traumatized children and parents of the dead violates the 1A right to free speech, but restricting my 2A right to own guns because someone used guns that were stolen is perfectly OK.
I guess the media and the antis forgot that the 2A is what’s used to defend all the other rights.
The video is really funny!!!
And the piece was well written!!
Maybe the news doof’s would appreciate it of we take away some of their 1st amendment rights!! It would help us by shutting them the hell up. Make them liable for everything they say, if not true then they go to the pen for slander and willful fraud. Oh and every camera and microphone has to have an Anti Stupid lock on it, if the reporter starts to say something stupid, untrue, biased or discriminatory then the mike and/or camera will hit them with 80,000 amps of electricity and continue to do so until they quit yelling and screaming!!
Good for the goose, good for the gander!!
I had to read that statement by Taranto twice and slowly for it to sink in I think correctly. Time for another sip of coffee.
So if we infringe on 1A then of course that isn’t right, not that I don’t think the media doesn’t play these tragedies out for all to see, yet it seems just fine to stomp 2A into the ground.
I am like Aharon, it is to damn early! I can’t tell if he is pro or against 2A. It seems like if we infringe on one then why not the other? Am I wrong?
We must enact a law for gun blog Content Control. No confusingly posted statements until after lunch unless they come with a clear explanation by the poster. By enacting content control it will stop all misunderstandings on the Internet and usher in a new era of world peace. Write your Congressman.
The way I read it, he’s saying that the allure of mass media coverage is also (in part) responsible for mass murderers who are looking for posthumous significance. Regulating media like China to stifle “advertisement” of these acts would be decried in the US as illegal and contrary to the right of free speech. He is saying it is just as tricky to come up with a way to regulate firearms without being contrary to the right to keep and bear arms. It actually does NOT sound anti-gun to me.
Comments are closed.