The press and media (including MSM) should be pro guns not anti-guns.

Posted on January 10, 2013



The press and media (including MSM) should be pro guns not anti-guns. When their livelihood depends on the whims of a capricious government that has all the power to do what it wants, what happens to the actual press? They have no footing to stand on. No one can say not to that government. The 2nd amendment was meant to protect the first amendment.

Governmentally not culturally, what has non-violent protest done in the past? Not much. Even the Civil Rights movement was backed by unused BUT available power in the form of threatened violence. Not the spreading of peace and kindness. Millions of angry people threatened our lives. So the government gave in. Anyone remember Kent State? I’m not much of a hippie but, that really was an example of government force run amok.  It’s true “He who has the gold rules.” He who has the guns commands. If the government clearly violates your first amendment rights (free speech, religion …) what makes them stop? The government already has claimed right to anything and everything you have at anytime with no recourse or payment. They can just take it (whatever it is.) The only thing that could stop them if the second amendment is ignored, is another country’s government and in our present case, that’s only 1 major country that can do that. And we know how great they are about civil rights violations.

Check the behavior of all the takeovers in governments – both Fascist and Communist. Force is used to enact the power transfer. After they have taken over, the press either becomes a puppet or is destroyed. The guns are declared “not safe for average citizen’s to have.” And any chance of stopping the offending behavior goes out the window. How much success are people going have by having a sit in, to stop a tank? None. Presently, the only opposition to immoral force is moral and ethical force. If the press themselves don’t want to prepare to protect the rights they live on by exercising their 2nd amendment rights, they are insane to remove the rights of others that could interdict and have an impact. They are biting the hand that that supports and protects them. The hand that feeds.

Do you really believe, as a moral reporter, that the government is always right and will never impede on your rights, much less on many others? Why are we in Afghanistan then? We are applying force to a problem to back off those who, a lot of people, believe threaten America by violent force. Force must be met with force.

All those that advocate disarming the public should be given the chance to go somewhere under a Fascist leader. Wait, not chosen, forced. If you don’t want the protection of the whole Constitution, go somewhere that has no second amendment. You will have your dream of no guns held legally by the public. And watch your first amendment (if they have one) rights drown and you have no real recourse. But there are no guns, well in the hands of the average person. Only the government has them. The criminals will love it. The government will love it (no reason to constrain itself.)

You are worried about one man with several semi-automatic weapons? I’m scared of millions that have fully automatic weapons and grenades. And training. And tanks. And drones. And planes.

Which one can cause more damage to America?