Background checks for journalists

"I don't know folks, I'm just talking out loud.[/quote]

As opposed to talking to himself?

 

Only if they cracked down on you because of the content of your speech, which would not be the case. They'd be cracking down on you because the government regulates the airwaves, which are necessarily limited in capacity.

 

Is the part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." written in invisible ink?

 

Which means there's a precedent for the government regulating a right. Only, instead of a finite resource such as radio airwaves, it's an infinite resource of the number and type of guns. They can say that it's a necessity to limit that resource to own a type of gun for the safety of its citizens.

 

Rush comes up with some pretty stupid stuff.

That being said, I don't understand why Second Amendment advocates aren't telling the truth about why they are against gun control...that an armed society is the best insurance against a tyrannical government. That's why I am pro-gun. Always have been...not just before a black mooslem (TM Starman) got into office.

 

Which "tyrannical government" are we talking about? Your village? Town? City? County? State? Federal?

How "armed" do you actually want society to be? Every family has a shotgun? Rifle? Handgun? Or is every family entitled to a missile system?

 

HOA.

 

Well, they could say that, but it wouldn't be the truth. And that much is obvious from the constant euphemistic undercurrent to the discussions here. "Law-abiding citizens" being the chief euphemism used.

 

Not a specific one. I'm not making any kind of claim about any current government. Jeez, can you chill out for a minute and try to understand what I am trying to say instead of getting all hyper?

I have also said I have no problem with the current proposals restricting "assault-style" weapons. No one should own something like a missile system or anything like that. Jeez, everyone really jumps to conclusions around here.

 

I just want to be able to aim a couple of scuds (which I picked up cheap when the Soviet Union collapsed) at my next-door neighbor Tom, who listens to Rush Limbaugh much too loudly. If I can demonstrate first-strike capability it will serve as a strong deterrent.

 

Or maybe you can explain what you mean without resort to an empty rhetorical flourish and ideological cliche like "tyrannical government."

 

Hasn't that been argued here before?

Maybe people who are recovering drug addicts showed not have access to the airwaves? In this day and age, Rush's platform makes him a "journalist" for a lot of people.