Robert J McElwain
New member
I think you've made my point.
Bob
NPR's take on the Second Amendment:
- Thread starter copenhagen
- Start date
I think you've made my point.
Bob
copenhagen
New member
Nice signature Bob. By the way, I am far from a right wing nut job or a liberal. I did however find much bias in NPR's piece. I am somewhat of a Constitutionalist you might say.
Robert J McElwain posts:
No, I didn't. You have not answered any of the questions or countered any of the arguments, mine or others, made for bias. And you've made no argument supporting your position. Am I missing some tongue in cheek point you've made?
Do you want to attempt to have a discussion or are you merely being contentious? Please, demonstrate your claim. So far, you're blowing smoke.
No, I didn't. You have not answered any of the questions or countered any of the arguments, mine or others, made for bias. And you've made no argument supporting your position. Am I missing some tongue in cheek point you've made?
Do you want to attempt to have a discussion or are you merely being contentious? Please, demonstrate your claim. So far, you're blowing smoke.
Okay.... Bob, where in the NPR piece is: Whether the provisions of D.C. Code (citations omitted), violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes, answered or even addressed?Robert J McElwain said:
That is the Constitutional question to be decided. Not the collective right vs. individual right stance that the NPR piece took. That question was laid to rest before even the merits briefs were filed, by the manner of the question the Court has decided to address.
In short, either the second amendment rights of individuals are violated by the provisions of the D.C. Code or they are not. The NPR piece, as did all the briefs in support of D.C. (and a majority of briefs for the respondent), addressed a matter not before the Court.
I suspect that the Court will address this issue, if only in dicta, but it will not be the decision that is handed done.
As the NPR report failed to address the constitutional question, but raised the specter of a dead issue, how then can it be balanced?
Robert J McElwain
New member
Copenhagen,
I read most of the transcripts from the SCOTUS hearings and it seemed to me that NPR was just summarizing the arguments from both sides, not trying to make their own arguments. As such, I thought that was fair, given that they were reporting to an audience that probably had not followed the issue as closely as most forum members.
Again, based on the arguments and the questioning by the Court, I expect the decision to go in favor of Heller. The devil will be in the details.
Bob
I watch Fox and they ALWAYS present both sides. Even their most conservative host, Sean Hannity has a liberal associate, Alan Colmes and admits he is a conservative COMMENTATOR not a news broadcaster. CNN and NPR deceive my presenting their liberal agenda as news not commentary. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
It's very simple.
If Miller had not been able to raise a challenge to the NFA grounded in an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, his case would have been dismissed for want of standing, rather than remanded for further hearings as to the military usefulness of short-barrel shotguns with an expectation of further review by the Supreme Court. There was no credible evidence that Miller was a member of some state-organized militia, nor could there be since he was a rum-runner and denizen of the criminal underworld.
Prior to that case, you wouldn't need a court decision stating that the Second Amendment is an individual right any more than you'd need a court decision saying that the First Amendment protects the right to keep and bear ink and printing presses.
Court decisions which misinterpret and misconstrue the Miller case are junk, and don't merit discussion.
As for other cases, get yourself a copy of the book Supreme Court Gun Cases by Alan Korwin and Dave Kopel:
Why didn't the US Supreme Court dismiss the Bean case for want of standing? Or the Small case, which pointed out that the Court should "defer to Congress’ Findings that firearm possession is a constitutional right which may not be taken away unless the law clearly so provides"? Or why did they discuss the Second Amendment in terms of other individual rights in the Bill of Rights in the Verdugo-Urqidez case?
It's quite clear that the US Supreme Court has consistently recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right for decades - nay, centuries.
jakeswensonmt
New member
And every once in a while, they actually let Colmes get in a word or two, and he usually smiles sheepishly and makes a brilliant comment like "golly" or "jeepers." It's not easy for Hannity to get the leash on underneath Colmes' shirt and tie.
Agreed that CNN and NPR push the politically correct agenda day and night, but Fox is just as blatantly imbalanced, leaning towards a neocon-sycophant fascist agenda. None of the aforementioned "news" sources are trustworthy, and contain very little that is indeed "newsworthy."
jakeswensonmt posts:
Aside from your name calling and misunderstanding of the word "fascist", I pretty much agree that "news" sources are untrustworthy. Fox, however has polled less untrustworthy than the others by almost half:
I call the current media efforts "Mediaocracy." That is, when the media want your opinion, they'll tell you what it is. The subject at hand, NPR/OTM, being a really good example of an attempt at what is called in Public Relations circles, "Opinion Engineering."
You can't shut Colmes up. He talks over any non liberal guest on the show. He's rude about it. Maybe it's his job.
Aside from your name calling and misunderstanding of the word "fascist", I pretty much agree that "news" sources are untrustworthy. Fox, however has polled less untrustworthy than the others by almost half:
Notice where PBS falls. (Source)
I call the current media efforts "Mediaocracy." That is, when the media want your opinion, they'll tell you what it is. The subject at hand, NPR/OTM, being a really good example of an attempt at what is called in Public Relations circles, "Opinion Engineering."
copenhagen
New member
Update:
Listened to the offending little program on NPR tonight, On The Media. I thought for sure they would have the fortitude to read some of the comments left on their "Under the Gun" program. Guess I thought wrong. Also, some guy pretty much accused everyone who commented of being informed by the NRA (I don't even think the NRA has said anything about this), and being members of the KKK. This was not on the radio, but is a comment on the original program's web page from the beginning of this post. Needless to say, I responded. I think you guys might get a kick out of this guy though.
Listened to the offending little program on NPR tonight, On The Media. I thought for sure they would have the fortitude to read some of the comments left on their "Under the Gun" program. Guess I thought wrong. Also, some guy pretty much accused everyone who commented of being informed by the NRA (I don't even think the NRA has said anything about this), and being members of the KKK. This was not on the radio, but is a comment on the original program's web page from the beginning of this post. Needless to say, I responded. I think you guys might get a kick out of this guy though.