Breaking ,CNN leads the charge against handguns and the Constitution (Big surprise Huh)

This is not as much a gun thread as a constitution thread.

"Our whole society controls how much you can drink, how many pills you can buy, we have controls we accept on everything else in this society -- except guns," Bouchard said. "Those things are all acceptable to us. But with guns most people will not even discuss restrictions

This is the last paragraph in cnn's report where they get to their point.This is where I start flaming.Of course they fail to point out,That while how much you can drink,and how many pills you can take are not Constitutional issues,they just lump them in like it doesn't matter.





The article starts with stats about handguns verses assault weapons.Even though the stats show the assault weapons ban makes no sense,At no time do they point out that the present attempt at assault weapons is the first step at the 2nd admendment.

CNN is not a news organization that is neutral,they are a lobbyist with a agenda.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


CNN (Communist News Network) is the propaganda organ of the liberal agenda - always has been. Why not take the route that most have taken and just stop watching and reading? Folks have posted dozens of links demonstrating how CNN fakes the news.

Their audience is shrinking faster than a penis in a snow storm! Be a part of the movement!!!

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


CNN like most of it's viewers and the Obama administration feel that "saving one life" is worth trampling the constitution. It would seem to me, many more lives than one were lost in order to have that document drafted in the first place and no one ever said freedom was free, not even our founding fathers. Freedom always comes at a price, that price may include lost life and that is sad but consider the alternatives.....

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I just find it insane that people aren't seriously cancelling their cable subsciptions to channels like CNN for propagating political ideals under the guise of 'news' or media.

It is all such a backwards world when Presidents and other politicians are doing talk or fashion shows and the supposed journalists are are doing the campaigning for a political agenda.

I don't have that channel and am glad for it.

Democratic leadership is now pretty much resigned to the reality that no AWB will pass and there is an equally slim chance any magazine limit will pass so every gun control proponent out there is wildly grasping at anything they can reach.

Their position has fallen apart, there is no consensus on their side save for the total abolitionists.

"Assault" rifles, handguns, shotguns, ammunition, magazines, they have no idea what to go after or if they even can.

In the end the best they will do is a bunch of imaginary bans such as the ceramic guns and teflon bullets of decades past.

When a moron wants to ban a horse for no other reason than it's a horse the best they can realistically hope for is a unicorn.

I like unicorns. Cnn and all news agencies are propaganda now days.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

CNN (Communist News Network) is the propaganda organ of the liberal agenda - always has been. Why not take the route that most have taken and just stop watching and reading? Folks have posted dozens of links demonstrating how CNN fakes the news.

Their audience is shrinking faster than a penis in a snow storm! Be a part of the movement!!!

I know what you mean.My problem is I go to all news outlets and view all reports.BBC, CNN, MSMBC ,FOX, ALJAZZZEERA ect. Because none speak the truth,I have to view all reports to come up with anything resembling the truth.But I can spot motive in most of them.

Leave my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS alone you Tyrants. Always trying to dictate what I can and cant do.

DONT TREAD ON ME!

Reporting news cost money. There's the cost of finding the news, paying for free thinking and quick witted reports and the chance that no one will read it and you make no money.

While reporting on political agendas cost very little and sometimes you make money be for the new is even released. Sometimes you can even make money for not releasing.

reply to post by ObjectZero


The whole contemt of news is different in Canada I guess because when I see news it is news...with the occasional eye ball rolling from the newscaster or smirky comment but it is news unless it is an entertainment news show (ie: Rick Mercer Report, 22 Minutes, George G etc) in which the politcians are mocked and not the political issue itself.

example: www.youtube.com...

The entire MSM is nothing but propaganda, lies, coverups and tabloid crap. Probably always has been to some extent. They have it down to an art. If it wasn't so disgusting it would actually be kind of awe inspiring to just sit down and watch them work. As much as I despise them and distrust them, even I have to work at it to keep myself conscious while watching or reading their stuff.

Just lucky that Constitution does not say anything about a well regulated militia as a key point of the 2nd amendment or people would think that guns could be regulated.

They must be mad at getting badly burned when someone studied Google earth and found out that what CNN said was Sandy Hook was not Sandy Hook at all! (I dare anyone to debunk this.)

CNN video of police charge at Sandy Hook is not Sandy Hook
digitaljournal.com...

reply to post by Munkle


Debunk Sandy Hook how could we? It was a random event, at least i hope so!

All the media info supplied with this event so far has suggested to me that this was an isolated incident., not meaning to debunk you dear Sir! I have inside knowledge... As a media representative myself i would have known in advance of such rumors!

And to be fair it was such a tragic event! The victims deserved better! And it's not only noted in American history throughout the globe... Room for though?

Originally posted by MrSpad
Just lucky that Constitution does not say anything about a well regulated militia as a key point of the 2nd amendment or people would think that guns could be regulated.

Your sarcasm would be better taken if you knew the definition of what the founding fathers referred to as a Militia. A state militia was meant to be separate from the Armed forces that the Federal government was given the power to raise in order to secure our borders and protect the citizens from enemies of our nation. So no, the National Guard does not cover what was meant as a Militia because it is not a private force but rather an extension of the Army.

A state militia is made up of private citizens, not trained soldiers ordered by the federal government and was seen as necessary to keep the federal and/or state government in check. Read up on McMinn Co. Tennessee and the Battle of Athens in 1946 for a good idea of what a well regulated militia is.


And you forget the second sentence of that amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This was placed as a restriction on the Government.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Just lucky that Constitution does not say anything about a well regulated militia as a key point of the 2nd amendment or people would think that guns could be regulated.

The regulated militia means provided for by the states in regards to funding and such, it complements the independent clause establishing the individual's right to keep and bear arms as the militia is universally understood the free man who provided his own when when called to act.

Why is it so hard to simply support all of our liberties? Both sides? The left hates the 2nd. The right hates the 4th/1st.

Aren't both sides just bad Americans for not cherishing what makes America so amazing?

Derek

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yep and it sure looks like the boob tube as propaganda tool has FAILED! In this case. Note the underestimation and lack of understanding that gun grabbers have of what they are dealing with.....and who they are talking to. And how much stock they put in themselves.

Originally posted by Viesczy
Why is it so hard to simply support all of our liberties? Both sides? The left hates the 2nd. The right hates the 4th/1st.

I don't know where you are getting that the right hates the 1st/4th. If you are referring to Bush he was in no way a conservative regardless of the letter after his name. Rand Paul and other conservative leaders are the ones fighting to repeal the patriot act and other violations of the 4th. As far as the 1st. Well someone on either side is always trying to step on that be it the religious right trying to force church down our throats, the atheist left trying to ban any mention of religion in public or Obama trampling on our freedom to peacefully assemble.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Just lucky that Constitution does not say anything about a well regulated militia as a key point of the 2nd amendment or people would think that guns could be regulated.

Did you know the word "Manufacture", when taken from its Latin root, means "To make by hand?" Interesting that it almost only is applied to mechanized production these days, huh?

Did you know that the word "aerial" used to mean something was imaginary or wispy as the air? Seems like the invention of the airplane may have spurned that word on to a different meaning, doesn't it?

Did you know that "investment" originally referred to the act of putting on your clothes? Somewhere along the lines, vestments became a rare term for clothes and bankers must have needed a new word for "Give me your damn money."

Did you know that the word "gay" was used simply to describe a happy, cheerful mood as recently as 50 years ago?

I wonder if maybe, just perhaps, the word "regulated" may have had a meaning in the late 1700s which is different from the meaning today? LOL I bet if it does have a different meaning, the Framers of the Constitution would think we were all pretty silly, thinking of their word and trying to apply a modern meaning to it, don't you agree?

Oh hey there, this is relevant.
SOURCE

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Wow! That sure changes things! Seems like they intended exactly the opposite of what "regulated" means today. They weren't advocating any oversight of our militia at all, they were using the lingua franca of their day to mandate that the people not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but should be fully outfitted and well equipped. Context, especially historical context, is everything.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You are correct and even in current terminology the definitions imply 'adjustment' of rule, principal or method dictionary.reference.com... YET, control, rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct and systematize are merely SYNONYMS, not definitions (as gun control activists claim).

Besides, if the founding fathers had wanted or preferred a government sponsored militia...they would have added the specified provision to house/store, purchase and delegate distribution of such arms and ammuntions be left 'in goverment hands' until such a necessity arises. Otherwise, why bother giving person's the right to bear arms if militias were intended for homeland security only. They couldn't have anticipated the arguements arising out of this idea of government only as being 'regulators' since they perhaps assumed that we would KNOW the reasons for which the country was built.