My Political Belief

[AntiSpin]

The government should be able to regulate the content of any radio, television or internet broadcasts, including political or religious expressions sent out over the air or the internet, as well as political or religious beliefs expressed within buildings, through the use of microphones, amplifiers and speakers.

Since the founders could not have foreseen any of those things, the 1st amendment does not apply to them.

 

[wyohome]

Out of school for the summer, Plato?

 

[Telekinesis]

Be careful what you wish for. There are people out there who desire just what you're proposing.

Likely the same kind of people who read dystopian novels and think "now THAT'S the way the world should function!"

 

[Huskerguy]

They did anticipate the need for free speech under most conditions regardless of how the sound is transmitted. Go ahead and give up your rights, I prefer to keep mine. Last I looked, many people have died for those rights. What you are saying is our constitution is not relevant to anything modern? Amazing

 

[Sam Cade]

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον απαγωγή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

[sherman123]

That's great stuff dude +10 to that. That's actually pretty deep imho.

 

[Theohazard]

Guys, I'm pretty sure the OP is being facetious; it looks to me like he's making a counter-argument to the anti-2nd Amendment argument that goes something like this: "Our founding fathers never could have imagined the crazy high-powered assault weapons we have today!"

EDIT: I got distracted while I was writing my post so I missed Sam Cade's post.

 

[pockets]

Someone is bored apparently.

.

 

[Midwest]

The government should be able to regulate the content of any radio, television or internet broadcasts, including political or religious expressions sent out over the air or the internet, as well as political or religious beliefs expressed within buildings, through the use of microphones, amplifiers and speakers.

Since the founders could not have foreseen any of those things, the 1st amendment does not apply to them.

They did regulate content on WHAT can be discussed when it came to controversial subjects and issues. It was called the "Fairness Doctrine" and it was repealed in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."




Now, what has this to do with "General Gun Discussions" ? Unless of course the discussion of how the media is generally anti-gun and maybe government intervention by re-instating the "Fairness Doctrine" would help out cause? It won't help it one iota.

Now...where can I find .22lr ammo for under $99 a box ? hmm...........

.

 

[HoosierQ]

The government should be able to regulate the content of any radio, television or internet broadcasts, including political or religious expressions sent out over the air or the internet, as well as political or religious beliefs expressed within buildings, through the use of microphones, amplifiers and speakers.

Since the founders could not have foreseen any of those things, the 1st amendment does not apply to them.

I believe he is using hyperbole to make a point vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment. IE the founding fathers wouldn't have forseen magazine fed weapons...just as they would not have forseen the Internet or TV. The 1st Amendment has given no one pause about extending it to technologies unforseen by the founding fathers. Thus the 2nd Amendments should also be extended to technologies not forseen by the founding fathers (metalic cartridge, magazine fed, semi-automatic firearms).

I say, nicely done!

 

[Al Thompson]

Interesting old point (been done before), but not really gun related.