Background checks for journalists

[Dick Whitman]

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

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

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

And I asked: So?

 

[novelist_wannabe]

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

 

[Dick Whitman]

Actually, it's the height of stupidity. A missile system is not a gun.

Can you point out the word "gun" in the Second Amendment?

Can you point out the words "advanced military weapons systems" in the Second Amendment?

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

All filed under "tools of war." Debate what that phrase means all you want.

If you think an assault rifle is a tool of war, all the power to you. Some disagree. I doubt you'd find many who would dispute what a missile system is.

For the record, I don't mind restricting some currently legal weapons. I've never owned one, and never will.

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.

 

[deskslave]

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

 

[terrier]

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.

 

[Riptide]

Agreed.

Back to the subject at hand, I think if journalism is ever going to regain traction in society, maybe a hiring standard higher than "Oh, you'll work double-time for $8 an hour and no benefits? You're hired!" should be applied.

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

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

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.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

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.

Obviously you hate sports talk radio, especially local shows in SEC country.

 

[Bradley Guire]

Agreed.

Back to the subject at hand, I think if journalism is ever going to regain traction in society, maybe a hiring standard higher than "Oh, you'll work double-time for $8 an hour and no benefits? You're hired!" should be applied.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Mark2010]

DW, if you are a felon can you sit on a jury? Vote?

There is some degree of background checking going on to all of us when you really think about it.

Good point about juries.

I think where Rush Limbaugh's argument falls apart is that there really aren't any particular rights that journalists have that every day citizens do not in terms of exercising the right to free speech. Free speech and free press are pretty much one and the same, doctrinally. So there seemingly does not exist the kind of split in the law between the two groups to begin saddling the exercise of one with restrictions and not the other. This would be particularly difficult in the era of the democratization of media.

The way things are today, anyone with access to a computer ---- hell, maybe even one of those fancy phones --- can publish a blog or post nonsense on YouTube. So what's the difference?

This was just the latest retarded idea by Mr. Limbaugh that isn't going anywhere. Funny part is that, if it ever did, it may well be he and his moronic "ditto heads" (does he still use that term?) who would be deemed mentally unstable and denied access to the airwaves.