Suddenly, the press is opposed to background checks
Well, when it comes to the first amendment, anyway.
6 Responses to “Suddenly, the press is opposed to background checks”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 5th, 2016 at 5:56 pm
>”It seems like an unnecessary step and it gives them in my mind a new and troubling precedence to try and exert authority over the press corps”
This just goes to show, some people don’t understand a problem until that problem begins to affect them directly.
Infringe on the second amendment? Sure, that’s OK as long as it’s in the “public interest” (says the liberal media).
But infringe on the first amendment? Hey now, that affects us. And that just ain’t right…
May 5th, 2016 at 8:35 pm
DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET???
Gun control is not about the guns its about the control. Let this sink in free born men, let it sink in real good. Some excerpts;
“background checks, the lack of a clear appeals process, and the involvement of a third-party subcontractor,
It seems like an unnecessary step and it gives them in my mind a new and troubling precedence to try and exert authority
It creates a logistical burden, a troubling precedent for their ability to have almost a de facto say in who is qualified
What if they use this as precedent to extend to other campaign events
stems from a 2013 presidential directive
Access control includes background checks on anyone
secure zones ‘zoned’ credentials
go through the security check and take a special shuttle service to the site
telling us we’re just going to have to live with it
they said there is no appeals process to anyone excluded from a secure zone
It looks like we’re going to be doing this regardless of people’s bad feelings about it”
May 5th, 2016 at 10:17 pm
”It seems like an unnecessary step and it gives them in my mind a new and troubling precedence to try and exert authority over the press corps”
If that means holding the assholes accountable for their lies, bias, and race-baiting, I’m all for it.
May 6th, 2016 at 1:38 am
Freedom of the press is far too important to be given, willy nilly, to just anyone. First amendment says so– Clearly it refers to an official, thoroughly vetted, tightly controlled, government-run press only. Otherwise who knows what could be said in public?
That’s what they say about us and the second amendment. If we’re consistent then we have to back the real meaning of the Bill of Rights in all cases, even for douchebag journalists, lest it become the Nil of Rights. (auto-correct just gave me that Nil of Rights bit, so I ran with it)
May 6th, 2016 at 4:26 pm
You think this is an infringement on the 1st Amendment?
Just wait until a suicide bomber hits anywhere near a campaign crowd.
May 6th, 2016 at 6:26 pm
“You think this is an infringement on the 1st Amendment?
Just wait until a suicide bomber hits anywhere near a campaign crowd.”
I fail to see the connection between one and the other.
So liberty is only acceptable in such situations or places where there is absolutely no danger?
So all our government needs to do is make sure there is enough danger, or enough perception of danger, and then our rights are nul and void for the sake of “safety”.
Again; there is only one kind of real “safety” and that is the safety of human rights. Take that away and any other kind of “safety” is gone anyway.