Ammo For Sale

« « Obama Supports UN Small Arms Treaty | Home | RIP Gary Coleman » »

Those “reasonable restrictions” they’re always going on about

Shoe, foot:

State Senator Bruce Patterson has an idea to help people sort out the media. He wants to create a state board to license and regulate reporters. Michigan Radio Jack Lessenberry has been thinking about that.

State Senator Bruce Patterson got to thinking about the media recently, and noticed something. Hairdressers and auto mechanics are regulated and licensed by the state.

So are lawyers, doctors, even those who give manicures. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t reporters be as well?

Little creepy but gets creepier:

His bill would set up a board to review applications and license reporters. Candidates would have to demonstrate that they have a journalism degree, or, failing that, three years of experience, some published stories, and letters of recommendation.

Those who qualify would have to pay a license fee, and would be entitled to call themselves a “Michigan Registered Reporter.” Senator Patterson isn’t suggesting that those who don’t register be prevented from writing or broadcasting anything.

He just thinks it would help the public distinguish who was a reputable reporter, and who wasn’t.

You think a license = reputable?

25 Responses to “Those “reasonable restrictions” they’re always going on about”

  1. Will Says:

    These clowns just keep getting scarier and scarier.

  2. Bill Waites Says:

    WEll, no, but we all think concealed permit holders are good guys, so there is that conception!

  3. ericire12 Says:

    Its the same approach many states take with the 2nd amendment

  4. Aaron Spuler Says:

    One of the first steps dictatorial regimes take is control of the media and press….

  5. Darwin Says:

    Of course he’s a Republican which you “forgot’ to mention.

  6. Pol Mordreth Says:

    I can’t tell if its for real or tongue-in-cheek picking at the state licensing requirements for everything else…

    Pol

  7. alan Says:

    I think it’s very subtle satire.

    We all know, or should, that state licensing schemes are all designed to limit competition. They have nothing to do with quality.

  8. ericire12 Says:

    Darwin – what does it matter if he is a Republican? All politicians are scum.

  9. Nate Says:

    So perfect….for years the media has screamed about registering and permitting all firearms owners. How’s it feel douche bags, think “it could never happen in America” anymore.

  10. The Packetman Says:

    Satire along the lines of Tom Coburn wanting a bill to ban tobacco.

    But given that the 2A parallel is too sweet, I’m all for it.

  11. Nylarthotep Says:

    You think a license = reputable?

    It would help if they established an ethics oversight panel that actually held sway over complaints and license retention. But overall it the whole concept is pretty bizarre. And no doubt politics would NEVER have creep into the accreditation process.

    @Darwin
    What difference does it make if he’s a Repuglican? A stupid idea is stupid. Would it make any difference if he was of the Labor party or the Communist party. Not to mention, why would SU mention it? He rarely parses party affiliation.

  12. TomcatsHanger Says:

    So what about recipricy?

    Are they going to control CNN or Dateline broadcasts in their state?

    Are they going to require reporters from outside of their little shithole to get out of state licenses?

    How in the world do you get 3 years of experience to get the license if you don’t have a license to get the experience?

    What is the minimum size of the audience to require a license?

    What is this shit? (rhetorical, it’s statists getting their control on ofcoarse.)

  13. Chas Says:

    Make the license mandatory to practice any journalism anywhere in the state. Make it discretionary, and be sure to tack on arbitrary restrictions, which if violated will result in loss of the license. Charge a fee. Require a three-page application be filled out. When they show up in the office to ask for the application, tell them they have to go home and download it off the Internet, then fill it out and bring it back. Require them to have the license on them at all times when practicing journalism or they lose the license. Make it a felony to practice journalism without a license.
    That’s what a pistol license is like in NYS. Journalists who have no problem with “gun control” shouldn’t have a problem with “journalism control”, unless they’re the despicable, hypocritical, juvenile sons of Satan that they in fact are. When Kipling said, “half devil and half child” he might as well have been talking about MSM journalists.

  14. Mikee Says:

    How about any felony conviction, or a misdemeanor such as DUI, domestic violence, check bouncing, or falsehood in a previous story, by a licensed reporter, loses that person the right to write for public consumption, speak publicly, or otherwise broadcast anything for the rest of their lives?

  15. EnemyoftheState Says:

    Would they have to pass a practical test for accuracy? The government shouldn’t give anyone a license to shoot off their mouth unless they have demonstrated that they can do so accurately.

  16. Thirdpower Says:

    Chas has the right idea. We should also demand that, for the public good, that these licenses are made public and published in regular media formats (such as the Commercial Appeal).

  17. Flighterdoc Says:

    How about a license to run for office? One that requires 100% accuracy on a written test of the US Constitution (I’d be happy to write it for them).

    Combine that with a general intelligence test, review of educational transcripts, credit and background investigation, letters of reference from non-family members who ‘are of good character’ who have known the applicant for three or more years, and of course, have an articulable need to be elected.

  18. Pete Says:

    I would just introduce a bill that is a carbon copy of the concealed handgun license bill but change everything to “journalist” instead of “gun owner.”

    Do you think the media would get it? Probably not.

  19. Lyle Says:

    “You think a license = reputable?” Sure. Dan Rather would get a license, while Ann Coulter would not. Let reputable = leftist agitator. There. It all works now. Lets not get all excited. This has happened before. They called it the Fairness Doctrine. Just slap a new name, and some fresh makeup on that old whore and it’s all good. The forefathers didn’t envision television or the internet after all. They should absolutely do this. Having been written by dead, white slave owning smugglers, the constitution doesn’t mean anything anyway. Why play pat-a-cake? The Dems can have their police state, and the Republicans will go along to get along. Everyone’s happy.

  20. Jerry Says:

    Would that mean you have to get a learner’s permit to be a blogger?

  21. Michael Dunn Says:

    1. The Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.

    2. First Amendment.

    3. Fourteenth Amendment.

    4. End of discussion. Unconstitutional on its face.

    Of course, you can make the same case for 2A, but the judges won’t necessarily agree. They will on this one.

  22. geekWithA.45 Says:

    Statism: It’s all fun and games until they come for *your* sacred cow, and then it’s a party!

  23. Chas Says:

    Fight to ram draconian restrictions down their journalista throats and then let them make our arguments for freedom for us. Let them highlight the ludicrousness of their own hypocrisy by arguing for freedom and gun control at the same time. Then let the public laugh at them for contradicting themselves.

  24. Josh G Says:

    Require this license for bloggers as well, with fees of $200 a yr + $100/yr renewal fee.

    Oh wait, that’s just Michigan Medical Marijuana … nevermind.

  25. Karl Says:

    Follow the decline of liberty in the US, and you’ll find the word “reasonable” at every turn…

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives