South Carolina Politicians Propose Ridculous Plan To Register Journalists... To Make A Statement About Gun Control
from the damn-those-journalists dept
In a move that seems pretty clearly designed to piss off journalists (but will likely backfire seriously), South Carolina State Rep. Mike Pitts, has introduced a bill to "register journalists" supposedly to make a "point" about gun control. The bill is, laughably, called South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law which would "establish requirements for persons before working as a journalist for a media outlet and for media outlets before hiring a journalist. It would fine people for conducting journalism without registration or for hiring a "journalist" not on the registry.From the details proposed so far, it appears that Pitts either has never heard of citizen journalists, or doesn't think they should be allowed to exist. Instead, only "approved" journalists will be allowed. And to be approved, you have to submit to "a criminal record background check, an affidavit from the media outlet attesting to the applicant's journalistic competence, and an application fee in an amount determined by the office." Reporters would need to renew their listing every two years.
Importantly (and unconstitutionally!), the bill lists out reasons why the state might "deny, revoke or refuse to issue a registration," including if the Secretary of State determines "that the person is not competent to be a journalist."
(1) The Secretary of State's Office may deny, revoke, or refuse to issue or renew a registration if the office finds that the person:So, yeah. The whole First Amendment thing guaranteeing freedom of the press? Yeah, that kinda makes this whole entire bill unconstitutional. But, Pitts, apparently, isn't too concerned about the Constitution. As for what makes you not competent to be a journalist? Apparently, it includes not being objective enough. Really!(a) has filed an application for registration that contains a statement that is false or misleading with respect to a material fact;(2) The Secretary of State's Office shall deny, revoke, or refuse to issue or renew a registration if a media outlet has determined pursuant to Section 40-85-40 that the person is not competent to be a journalist.
(b) has failed to pay the proper application fee or any other fee or penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter; or
(c) has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter.
(A) A person is not competent to be a journalist if:Considering how frequently people like to throw around charges of bias towards basically any reporting they dislike, you can just imagine how well that one will go over.(1) within the three years before submitting an application for registration, the person has been determined by a court of law to have committed:(2) as a journalist, the person has demonstrated a reckless disregard of the basic codes and canons of professional journalism associations, including a disregard of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as applicable to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.
(a) libel, slander, or invasion of privacy; or
(b) a felony if the underlying offense was committed to collect, write, or distribute news or other current information for a media outlet; or
And what happens if you happen to practice journalism without being on the registry? Well, then you face increasing fines and eventually imprisonment:
A person who works as a journalist without registering pursuant to Section 40-85-30(B):Right. Not that this bill has any chance in hell of becoming law (or remaining law if it somehow did pass), but I think I'll be avoiding South Carolina for a while.(1) for a first offense, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars;
(2) for a second offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than fifteen days, or both; and
(3) for a third or subsequent offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
For what it's worth, Pitts told the Post & Courier newspaper that he was really trying to start a discussion about proposals to register gun owners. Because... reasons.
Pitts told The Post and Courier his bill is not a reaction to any news story featuring him and that he is “not a press hater.” Rather, it’s to stimulate discussion over how he sees Second Amendment rights being treated by the printed press and television news. He added that the bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law.”That leaves aside some fairly big differences in the issue of gun control and a free press, but that's a debate for another website.
“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”
Even Pitts admits that he doesn't think the bill is going anywhere:
“Let’s be realistic; this is an election year,” Pitts said. “It is well into the second year and the Senate is not going to do anything this year and certainly not going to do anything controversial. So no, I don’t anticipate it going anywhere. Would I mind getting a hearing on it to further the debate and discussion? I would love to have that.”If you squint, you can kinda sorta maybe see the logic behind the argument he's making, but it's difficult to see how he's kicking off any serious discussion of much beyond "Hey, you proposed a really stupid bill."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, gun control, journalism, mike pitts, registry, second amendment, south carolina
Reader Comments
The First Word
“It's called satire Mike.
... it's the same as the Eating Babies proposal to stem hunger... Yes... it's unconstitutional. He knows that very, very well.. The point that you seem to be intentionally overlooking is that all of your arguments about why this bill is stupid apply to gun owners as well... all of whom are just as protected as citizen journalists by the constitution...Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
fair game
You either support the constitution... including the parts you don't like or you don't deserve to enjoy the benefits of any of them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unintended Consequences
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As long as I'm mentioning Popehat: Patrick Zarrelli still can't spell Tim's last name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
agreed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If anything, you (and any other 'media' outlets who write similar articles filled with righteous indignation) are falling right into his trap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unintended Consequences
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler said...
Possibly. Our problem is that these days it's impossible for us to tell anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I am assuming that is sarcasm? How much space do we have to talk about all the people irresponsible journalism helped to be killed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
*There are so many of these I'm not going to track down which one he's probably copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mason Wheeler said...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SCRAWL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
How can we allow this much deadly force to wielded by those who are un-registered and un-regulated? We must at once give the government the tools and power to protect us from a such a force so it can be only be used for good.
We must think of the children, they might be corrupted or mislead. If you seek to wield this power, you must have a background check so we know you are not a criminal or heaven forbid mentally a danger to yourself or others. If you aren't a registered journalist how can we be sure you aren't writing inflammatory copy that will endanger or even offend someone?
So I can see the need for the below kinds of processes:
Every place where there are large gatherings of diverse people should be JFZ (journalist free zone) so we can be sure there will be no drive by journalistic attacks. No offensive stories, no reason for people to feel unloved.
Police need you to disclose if you are CJP(concealed journalistic press) credential holder so they can be safe in the performance of their duties. You must surrender you stories to any officer if he/she feels it is necessary for their own or bystanders safety.
Every time you transfer a journalistic story to another person, you need to fill out RI-69(journalist story transfer) form. Keeping one copy, giving one to your reader and dropping one off to the local law enforcement office so they can enter it in the Journalist Registry.
Every time you send in a story you can not just publish it, it must go through a FJL(federal Journalism License) holder who will background check your publisher to insure it's not going to some with some criminal or mental issue that would prevent them from legally publishing your story.
This is just a start of the things we need to do to protect everyone from irresponsible journalistic activity so we can prevent mass misleading lies from being published to the detriment of our society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Dying is NOT the only bad thing that can happen. Additionally as some people will verify... death is better that what journalism can produce as evidenced by people that have committed suicide once their stories went public.
Lets pretend that you were falsely accused to being a pedophile, and the evidence stacked against you was damning to the core and the most Published Scandal of the year! How long would it take for you to consider suicide yourself? Even if you are innocent! Going to prison where you will not enjoy life is now clearly in view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's called satire Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
What you've failed to mention is that pen ownership does not equal journalism. If you're going to nitpick, please do so from all angles and not just the one that makes you the happiest.
Let's get real for a second. Who can and has destroyed more lives: gun owners or journalists? Before you answer, look at the people who have been falsely accused and later found out to be innocent, but were so demonized in the press that it destroyed them. Look at the people who have killed themselves because they were accused, not convicted, but made to look guilty by the news media.
I get the guy's point. He's not really wanting to pass this bill, but to highlight why the way gun rights are handled is kind of stupid in his opinion. I don't know if he's right or wrong, and nor do I have even the smallest scrap of "give a shit" over this. What I do have a problem with is people who refuse to actually put some thought in before they spout off their ridiculous opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Journalists don't kill people, people kill people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am actually glad he did this. The bill is satire and designed to draw attention to an issue.
Journalism I'd in some ways more dangerous than firearms because journalism shapes perception. Look at the gun debate. How often do the major networks like CNN stick to facts when it comes to firearm related topics? They push their ideology and ignore the opposition.
They proclaim someone guilty or innocent in front of millions before a trial has even taken place. How many lives have been ruined because the news "got it wrong"?
Maybe SOME regulation of the journalism field is warranted - I know, slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
Hoping once again for sarcasm... but just in case:
Not in Michigan, swords and many other weapons are considered deadly weapons and you have to have a permit to carry them. They fall under same statutes as firearms. I can carry a pistol concealed, but I am murky water if I am carrying a 6" fixed blade hunting knife unless I have a hunting license and are in a prescribed hunting season.
Though some things like blackjacks, billy clubs, fixed blades beyond a certain length (read swords) are banned outright even if you have a CPL. Can't carry a taser either w/o a special permit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's called satire Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
Both assertions in this statement are false.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fair game
It's clearly means to prove a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for the UK. They Banned Guns and guess what, people just went to using knifes and they're murder rates are almost as high. There's been mass murder in schools using a KNIFE!!! Just Google it up. Fact is more people are killed from a number of other things, Drug's, Alcohol, CARS, etc. What not do the same? Oh wait,....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fact is people have been killing people for thousands of years. Not a single gun in site in all that time. you can kill a person with your bare hands. A Rock, a Knife. Or a Pressure Cooker like in Boston. Not a single GUN was used!!!
There has been at least one Mass Murder in a School in Japan and all the person had was a Knife. That's not the only place. You can Google this stuff up. The UK banned Guns, and Murder by Knife went up! Their murder rate is almost as high as ours. Gun's don't kill people, People Kill people
have you heard the saying "Cop's are minutes away when seconds count!" That's how it's normally is. Criminals don't stick around. If you can get the police to your mouse in minutes, consider yourself lucky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
(Sorry. Obligatory.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's called satire Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
(Note: not actually a video of a monkey killing a person. What's the opposite of a 'trigger warning'? Whatever it's called, that's what this is.)
(https://youtu.be/vkPIJq0-gwM)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: fair game
This DOES mean something! Just asking for someone to wait 2 seconds is a breach of the 2nd. I can't help that you juvenile understanding of language makes you a blithering idiot.
Try to get out of the way of those of us who are not intellectually corrupt. Robbing a felon of their 2nd amendment rights is also unconstitutional. Once a citizen is released from prison they have their rights back.
YOU are EVERYTHING that is wrong with this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
Did you get your law degree from a box of cereal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: fair game
No wonder they need young and ignorant children to spew their morally and intellectually bankrupt garbage!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
Fact is people have been killing people for as long as people have been alive. There was not a single gun used for thousands of years and yet millions have been murdered.
If you think you gun a gun to kill a lot of people, and want to ignore BOMBS. Just do some Googling. Here is one example, Quote "It took just 10 minutes for a man armed with a kitchen knife to unleash terror in a Japanese elementary school in a stabbing spree that left eight school children dead and injured 21 other people."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80964
How about this one! Quote "A man wielding a knife wounded 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes on Friday, the police said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0
You don't hear about these things because it doesn't fit into the Anti-Gun Message!!! See when you don't have access to a Gun, you just use a Knife. A Gun is a equalizer. It'll allow a Woman to protect herself from any MAN. A Gun can protect a Gay person from a gay basher!!!
Gun Free Zone's only make people easy targets. The last place I would ever be around is a ZONE FREE ZONE!!! Criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals.
This is coming from someone who doesn't own a single GUN!!! Though one of my Brothers does and my Dad does. Their guns are locked up in Gun safes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems like Fox, NBC, etc. would all be guilty. Maybe he is on to something. /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.
I mean, I got that you got it, but I can see someone not getting that you got it and thinking that you didn't get it, when, in fact, you had gotten it. Satire is rife with gotchas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.
It shines a light on the intellectual corruption that pervades politics right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
The founding fathers made it clear beyond the shadow of any doubt what ALL of the amendments meant. Everyone has just conveniently left them out of the discussion to muddy the water.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
This includes the right to vote ... right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The pen is mightier than the gun, or something like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
The left wants to destroy the 2nd and the right wants to destroy the 4th.
Both are in favor of a police state but only a police state that targets malcontents they disagree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
The voting laws were all terribly written but the letter of it is certain.
Sadly, it would be constitutional to prevent anyone with a zit on their forehead or in poor health from voting because there is no protection for that in the Constitution. Like I said... they are terribly written.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.
If I was Mike Pitts, I'd print your article out and post it on the outside of my office door. Right under a giant Troll Face picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Journalists Don’t Kill Or Injure People ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mason Wheeler said...
And besides, registering journalists is so common and blatant in USA, today, that people traveling to USA have to fill out a form where they have to specify if they are a journalist.
The same goes for the constitution:
Free speech zones? as in fenced of areas?
ISDS? as a power able to convict a government?
Torture? as condoned by Condoleezza Rice?
Consentration camps in eastern Europa? as documented by the air travel when they were filled up, but not by anyone being released?
The founding fathers would be ashamed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
All the more reason for Pen Control Laws! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
The definition of a militia is non sequitur. The 2nd makes it clear that the peoples right to keep and bears arms is so that a militia CAN be raised at a moments notice to combat all enemies foreign and domestic.
You have forfeited your rights as a citizen and therefore deserve none of them.
The People, are responsible for defending the nation. The People are responsible for ensuring that Law & Justice are ensured by serving as Fully Informed Jurors additionally wielding Nullification to stop tyranny in its tracks.
Today's citizen instead, chooses to let the government they are supposed to rule over rule over them. They want to give up their rights and weapons to be protected like cattle and slaves. They want nanny government to protect them and tell them how to live and exist. They live in fear like the cowards they are of terrorism, drugs, and someone with a religion to spread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
That seems rather unlikely. I'm often asked to wait for a few seconds. The last time I bought a gun, the clerk asked me to wait for a few seconds while he went to unlock the case. And that was after I had to wait in line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
Anger management class maybe helpful in your case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
15th, 19th, 24th, 26th all have something to say about voting.
Which one or all are you referring to ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because guns are the same thing as .. ummm .. words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are no differences between the 1st and 2nd amendments
There are no differences between the 1st and 2nd amendments. Both outline the rights of the people. Except with the 2nd amendment, the government and many people seem to think passing many thousands of laws around gun control somehow doesn't violate the "keep and bear" clause.
I think what this guys is doing is extremely clever and points out the fatal flaw of all these gun laws. The flaw being that it says congress shall make "no law" yet here we are with many laws.
What is sad is while the people are fighting keep their rights to "keep" arms, we are losing our right to "bear" arms. The whole CCW permit idea is unconstitutional.
I understand some people don't like it, but we either are a land of laws or we aren't. If you don't like it, change the constitution, but don't violate it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
Try to get out of the way of those of us who are not intellectually corrupt.
If you're actually trying to convince people of something, and not just vent, this is not an effective technique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: fair game
I doubt most of them really care that much, it's more about the news business. Guns are potentially dangerous and scary, and so guns and gun violence can easily be portrayed in a sensationalistic scary way. I don't see a way to report the opposite point of view in a way that would resonate with the average viewer/reader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
In fact, the constitution is not a restriction on the rights of the people, it is a restriction on the powers of the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
I have forfeited my rights as a citizen? Really now? By saying every adult not currently serving in the active military is a member of the militia, and that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms? Do I offend The Party by not invoking the proper prayers and supplications, Comrade?
Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.
In the spirit of mocking any idea that a journalist need to register their activities, I would think that fits the spirit of the original article quite well. Just curious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's called satire Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good.
They should make them pay a $200 tax for each published sentence that has more than one word in it, too.
Next up: Free Speech Permits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm with Mike
2. This is bad satire, in that connecting the flaws of the foil with the flaws of the original is not automatic.
Also he didn't highlight the flaws, and thus we have Poe's Law in action. What I think he should have done is package it with the prerequisite constitutional amendment bill (or whatever it's called) to strike the Freedom of the Press from the Constitution and repeal the 2nd Amendment, and add the law he was trying to criticize.
For bonus points, the 2 bills and 2 proposed changes to the Constitution should be near-duplicates with certain keywords replaced, and he should release the fill-in-the-blank template so that anyone could satirize their unconstitutional law of choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
Unless it's found to be cruel and unusual, which it has not been (no idea if that question has been ruled on).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: gun is just a tool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: assure you the match grade competition rifles used by Olympic shooters do not have the "sole purpose" of killing.
Could you live with that? I think I could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Problem with satire...
A politician proposes a bill as satire - cost to taxpayer $$$.
Feeling good now suckers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: assure you the match grade competition rifles used by Olympic shooters do not have the "sole purpose" of killing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
Can you point to evidence of journalists "destroying" over 30,000 lives in one year? I think your claim may be out by a couple of orders of magnitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
However, even MENTION the possibility of a discussion WRT enacting reasonable legislation in that general direction and on go the tinfoil hats and out flows the froth. The worst argument I've ever seen is, "There's no point in making laws against gun ownership for criminals as criminals won't obey it."
Okay, so, why are there laws against burglary?
"It's better not to have laws in that case."
Seriously, that's the (circular) discussion. The point of having laws is to hold people to account when they are broken, and to impose penalties for breaking them.
You can't resolve your social problems by shooting them, you'll have to learn to get along with each other, including that little git over there with the wonky eye who has been looking at you in a funny way. Why is that too much to ask?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: fair game
You may find that the other side is more interested in solutions than in imposing controls on decent people. Once you stop seeing them as the enemy and start to empathise with them you can have a reasonable conversation about what to do to arrive at a solution that works for as many people as possible. During this time you may well discover that they're actually quite reasonable and that it's well worth taking the time out to talk to them.
I don't agree with everybody all the time and that's not a requirement for discussing the things that matter to them even if they're coming from an opposing point of view. I don't always win but sometimes it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Machete attacks are easier to stop than shootings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair game
That doesn't seem to describe anyone proposing gun control legislation currently.
Much the same as people become outraged when you try to have a discussion about legislation to limit free speech, and for the same reason: a knowledge of the history of all such laws and how they are always applied.
Maybe then we should try actually enforcing the existing laws instead of proposing new ones that don't actually solve any problems.
Ah, there we go. Now the truth comes out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: assure you the match grade competition rifles used by Olympic shooters do not have the "sole purpose" of killing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Problem with satire...
[ link to this | view in thread ]