Background checks for journalists

I'd consider that more a hyperbolic undercurrent. And no, that's not what I'm referring to.

 

No, but I can point out the word "arms" in Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

 

Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion.

Hell, I'm not sure what guns have to do with the discussion.

 

I think they would if, say, you had another fight you got in trouble for when you were 19 or 21 or 25.

 

You said that missiles aren't "guns" and, therefore, clearly not covered by the text of the Second Amendment.

And I asked: So?

 

Boortz liked to say that he was turning a severe personality disorder into a pretty good living. So there's that.

 

I'm just saying that shouting "Second Amendment!," regardless of how loud you shout it, doesn't end any debates over this. Not any more than shouting "First Amendment!" would end a free speech debate. There's another step to take.

 

Indeed. The idea that the media, or at least small and medium-sized newspapers, are able to participate in any sort of "vast liberal media conspiracy" is laughable to anyone's who's spent any time at a paper that size. It would require a level of organization far beyond any of their capabilities. It's nothing short of miraculous that newspapers still manage to publish on whatever schedule they purport to keep.

 

Unfortunately, that's never going to happen, at least not at the newspaper level...

If it costs them more money, they'll never do it.

 

Rush has a good idea, I'm all for it, provided radio talk hosts undergo the same mental health screening.
Well, guess I just ended that conversation.

 

My well-researched opinion is that newspapers need some management standards.

 

We'd be losing some of the best people in print and broadcast journalism and I'd be surprised if too many in talk radio could ever be declared healthy mentally.