Tomorrow night, Dan Rather is going to "educate us on the Second Amendment"

[thaddeus]

Okay, this is it, on Monday night Dan Rather is going to do his "eye opening reality check on the second amendment" on the Evening News.

He was supposed to do this story a couple weeks ago, but JonJon killed himself so they covered that story every day and they put the gun story off until there was another shooting (Atlanta).

Check out the CBS Evening News on Monday night if you want to get your blood pressure up. I am sure it is going to be blashphemous to the RKBA. Dan Rather has been very fair so far in his coverage of the gun issue on the Evening News, but the way they are advertising this one it sounds like it is going to be bad. They say that they are going to "educate us on whether the second amendment really gives us the right to keep and bear arms".

I better keep all loaded guns in another room during this one, or I might go off and exercise my RKBA on my television set.

thaddeus

 

[boing]

You're going to stand on top of your TV with your guns?

Rather must be overjoyed at the timing of the Atlanta shooting. Couldn't be more perfect for ratings.

I don't have TV, so take notes tomorrow.

-boing

 

[Grayfox]

Thanks for the reminder. I saw the comercial for it Friday, but had completely forgotten about it. I guess I'll just have to watch it. I also better go buy a new bottle of Malox first.

"I got a real bad feelin' bout this."

 

[DC]

Hmmm....

I was unaware that TV news personalities had graduated to academia. So, will college poli-sci majors be able to get credit for watching Dan's "treatise" on the 2nd Amendment?

Well, we'll save alot of money by not having to send our kids to college....make them watch TV instead. "CBS News----All you really need to know"

Bite me

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[DonL]

Unfortunately, too many people will see it and believe the propaganda, because, as we all know, Dan Rather is so sincere. Why, he must be telling the truth, I mean, why would any "news" report lie or even stretch the truth.

I don't know if I have the stomach to watch this one. I might ask to be filled in tommorrow.

------------------
Don LeHue

The pen is mightier than the sword...outside of arms reach. Modify radius accordingly for rifle.

 

[Paul Revere]

Dan Rather is just exploiting his anchor status to perpetuate the agenda of the left. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has traditionally been involved with nearly all leftist propaganda and political spinning.

You can expect to hear the leftist swan song that the 2nd Amendment right is not an individual right, but a collective one. That the term militia has effectively been replaced with the National Guard. All the while Dan will act as though he is unbiased.

My recommendation: Don't patronize CBS for airing this trash. Watch a good movie like, Red Dawn instead.

 

[DC]

Paul alludes to a question I've asked many times and never been answered:
To whit: Just for the sake of this arguement..
If the 2nd A does only apply to state militias, then how is it Constitutional that the Federal government has annexed the National Guard and effectively made it a part of the fed. military?
In essence, that means that the 2nd A is merely a government stating that it (the gov't) can have arms. Further, when all the other 1st 10 amendments are restrictions put upon the federal gov't, then the 2nd A becomes a "right" of the federal gov't....its out of place then.
My point is that no matter what interpretation one applies to the 2nd A, it still (in present operation) is not being Constitutionally obeyed. As far as I can see...if one interprets the 2nd A as a collective right, then one also has to consider EVERY ADULT part of the militia (like Switzerland), and we all MUST have guns! It is our duty and we would be guilty of treason if we do not own guns.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Dennis]

Agreed! Also treasonous NOT to be well-regulated - trained!

So I have NO choice! I MUST go to the range more often. (Thanks, DC!!! )

 

[longhair]

y'all are just gonna have to tell how it went tomorrow. the better half ain't gonna let me watch nothin' that might cause me to shoot the tv!!!! so i'll be waiting patiently for y'alls review.. thank you very much

------------------
what me worry?

 

[DC]

I made a Real Audio file of it
www.tcsn.net/doncicci/rather.rm

Go get it

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Futo Inu]

DC, you hit the nail on the proverbial head!

State National Guardsmen must swear their allegiance to the FEDERAL government. How on God's green earth can they be expected to stand up against THEIR tyrannical federal govt, which history shows clearly that is what the militia and second am are all about!

 

[thaddeus]

Well, that was pretty lame. the usual drivel and not even that impressive. Basically they said that most people today believe that the 2nd A guarantess the right of ALL people to own guns.

Then they said that only the Nat'l Guard and militias are supposed to have guns, which we all know is just silly in their argument.

Then they said that under census, only %6 of people owned guns at the time of the drafting of the 2nd A and that they were regulated even then because blacks and non-protestants could not own guns at the time according to laws of many of the 13 individual States (not Federal law, mind you, State law!). My questions on that include: how do we know that all people reported their guns to the census? Most people today would not report their guns to a census (only %10 register them when laws are passed such as in Kalifornia on SKS's), so how do we know that the people then, who were probably even less trusting of governemt than we are, reported their guns? Also, who cares that not that many people owned guns, because they were expensive and handmade, does that mean that most people would not have owned guns if they could have afforded them? I don't see how it really matters how many guns people owned then. I also wonder if they included hunted rifles, because I have a hard time believing that the frontiersmen that conquered this land and lived off of it did not own rifles to hunt and defend their homes with.


They ended the article saying that "the Right for the individual to own guns is founded more on myth than fact".
Thank for your opinion there guys, I am glad you cleared that up in 5 minutes for me. It has taken me years of study to even begin to understand what the 2nd A means, but Dan Rather's crew cleared it all up in 5 minutes for me and now I know it is all just myth. Thank you oh great media educator.


I wish someone would make very pubilc the many quotes from our founding fathers saying exactly what they felt about the issue. It seems to me that when you read the many quotes of how our forefathers who wrote the beloved document felt about the issue, then there could not be any more debate on the issue. It is very obvious what they meant by the 2nd A when you read the Fathers' very own comments on the issue.

------------------
"Don't confuse me with the facts, I already have my mind made up!" - gungrabber X

 

[thaddeus]

Thanks for the link. I guess no one needs my synopsis, but I wrote it as I watched.

ciao,
thaddeus

 

[RacerX]

Thanks for the heads-up, I'd hate to stumble across that broadcast unprepared. I'd better pick up a new jar of antacid tablets on the way home and remove all frangible ojects from the den.

You know, Rather can come across like a good 'ol boy when he wants to. I recall an appearance of his on Letterman's show, where Dan stuffed his cheek full of chewing tobacco. What a pity he has the ego trip thing cranked up to maximum, he just can't stay where he is unless he bends over backward to advance the socialist/liberal agenda. Dan LIKES being a luminary in the fourth branch of government and I expect his show tonight to reflect that.

 

[G-Freeman]

Thaddeus, Good point about people not necessarily admitting ownership at the time. I have also heard it argued that legal Wills which listed estates during the time rarely mentioned guns, so we are to assume that ownership was rare. Regardless, this topic is interesting and I would be happy if anyone has historical sources to recommend. IMO as more people came into the possession of arms and other forms of wealth under this experiment in liberty, the more freedom groups of individuals realized.

 

[Ivan8883]

Sorry guys I will have the shortwave on or ill be on the internet . True and factual news is NOT found on the commercial media or cable tv. like the Bible says, "the truth shall set you free" but the masses dont want the truth,but fluff! Who wants to get his stomach upset watching that clown "blather" on!

 

[BTR]

I think I just caught the whole thing. It was really short. It had a poll with a slight plurality of people saying that "all Americans" have a right to own guns protected by the second. I would have liked to have seen "all Americans defined a little more narrowly. Then, a man shooting an uzi on full auto, unfortunetly. Did the reporter note legally owned full auto weapons have be involved in no (or next to no) crimes in decades? No. On to the meat:

It stated about 3-4% of Americans owned guns, because they were so expensive, around the time the ammendment was written. So what?

It said (I think) that the militia has, more or less, been superceded by the national guard.

There were gun regulations in that time, such as free blacks, slaves, properteyless whites, could not own weapons.

Their main statement was that the Supreme Court has never strongly asserted an individual right to own guns, and now refuses to hear second ammendment cases. I believe this is true, unfortunetly.

I was then happy to have them interview a man disscussing how the supreme court is just made of people, and they are antagonistic to guns, and are not necessarily interepreting it correctly. A future court case could tip interpretation back towards individual rights. That sounded good.

It seemed more or less negative, and I was expecting a lot more. Did I miss anything?

 

[DC]

RE: 18th Century census

1) Less than 10% of the population was urban/city dwelling....the rest was rural
2) Cities/towns had constables/police
3) Who was likely to respond to a census? City dwellers or rural folks? Who was more likely to be exposed to a census being taken?
4) Who could read and write? How scientific were these censuses?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Paul Revere]

Ohhh Danny boy.

You are a slick spinmeister indeed.

He (Dan Rather) is an artist at confusing his viewers with half-truths, fabricated polls, historic references, and ideological interpretations, all the while appearing credible for his unsuspecting audience. Then capturing the visuals by showing the antique weaponry of our founding fathers and the slick high tech rat tat tat of our modern auto firing uzis and Tech-9's! What a show Danny boy...clap, clap, clap. You have succeeded in spraying your audience with even more composted horse manure.

The CFR will certainly forward that check to your Cayman bank account without hesitation after that piece.

 

[jimmy]

IMHO Dan Rather's little report was, in its way, just about as biased, ignorant, superficial, politically correct, and elitist as the recent Bill Kurtis fiasco on A&E.