Why We Must Ban High Capacity Media Magazines

After all the shootings that have taken place in the last few months, it’s time that we had a serious talk about public safety and a certain amendment in the Bill of Rights.

No one, except Charles Osgood and CBS, really wants to get rid of the Bill of Rights, but at the same time it’s important to put the Bill of Rights into context. Not only was the United States Constitution written by homophobes who were against little boys being able to play with gender-neutral EZ Bake ovens, but their primitive technology allowed them to fall into the trap of broadly defining a right without understanding how dangerous that right would become when backed by 21st century technology.

I am speaking of Freedom of the Press of course. Freedom of the Press is one of the more misunderstood elements of the First Amendment.

“Press” refers to the act of physically printing newspapers through a printing press. The Founders understood that unrestricted ideas were dangerous and should be limited to those who would use them responsibly. That is why they specified a printing press. Certainly they would not have meant that the radio or television, which can broadcast not only words, but voices and images, should have those same protections. And they would no more have extended those protections to the mass media on the internet than they would have allowed every homeowner to own his own AR-15.

Researchers have long since tracked the fact that mass shootings happen in clusters and that those clusters are fed by media coverage. While a gun can shoot people in a room, a camera can shoot the glorification of that shooting around the world. It is obvious which of these is more dangerous. The assault rifle or the assault camera.

While it’s understandable that many media types have grown up with a press tradition, printing up their own little newsletters as kids and handing them out to their neighbors. And no one has a problem with that. There will always be a place for the home newsletter in our country. It’s media networks that shoot high speed signals around the world that are well beyond the capacity that any law-abiding media organization needs in order to be able to report on events.

No one really needs to know something the moment it happens. They should be able to wait at least until the afternoon edition of the press. Some in the big media infrastructure may object to this, but they must remember that many countries with censorship of the press have far lower murder rates than the United States. It’s time that we joined them.

The media must act responsibly and do their part to end the killing. Giving up Freedom of the Press will be their way of committing to a better future for the children of tomorrow.

  • kaz

    you are so wrong. modern media is essential to the support of the democratic party, therefore the founders of our nation, even if they were only dead white men, must have meant for the bill of rights to protect the right of a free press to promulgate only liberal antiamerican, antiwestern stupidity. besides, if we allow those homophobe founding fathers to restrict our dear media, who will oppose the other rights of americans? we must protect the rights of liberals to have only their deranged ideas aired, no matter what those old dead white men wrote.

  • Tan

    "The Founders understood that unrestricted ideas were dangerous and should be limited to those who would use them responsibly."

    I understand where you are coming from, Greenfield. No abuse of the media = less trouble. However, restricting free speech against the Left would be a great mistake, because then they would be able to demonize us even more. In other words, how different would we be from the Left if we do the very things that the Left does to us and other opponents? How different would we be from Herbert Marcuse? Now if they made death threats against conservatives, Christians, or Jews on a daily bases, then pulling the plug on them is justified. But that's different from censoring someone. Here's my strategy for the Left's abusement of the media: give all the free speech the Left wants, and they will destroy themselves in the end as a result. Let them spread their lies and their character assassination. Each time the Left does something wrong gives conservatives an opportunity to go on the offense by exposing their wrongdoings. But if you take away the Left's freedom of speech, then you have no justification to go after them because you've silenced them already (plus we will be seen as the bad guys or "fascists" as they call us). In other words, you've just prevented the Left from saying or doing things that could have discredited themselves in the end. You never want to give people a reason to see the Left as heroes or victims. And you especially don't want membership on the Left to increase. You want to expose them as the wolf in sheep's clothing. My theory is that freedom of speech is the Left's weakness. They think they can get away with saying anything they want, and that is their weakness. I understand that the US risks the possibility of a Leftist dictatorship if they start to increase their influence and power over others, but if we have to deal with them through another civil war if such a dictatorship comes to past (God forbid), then that's just the way it is. At least conservatives and classic liberals will be the good guys in the end knowing that we did nothing wrong against the Left. But this is about how to defeat an enemy ethically without violating one's human rights. Think about it.

    • David

      You obviously do not understand where he is coming from. He is engaging in hyperbole. Using the arguments the left uses against the 2nd amendment but applying them to the 1st amendment to illustrate how absurd their argument is.

      • guest

        The word 'dense' easily comes to mind.

      • Tan

        Oh, now I get it. I thought he was serious for a second, but now that explains it. Thanks.

    • Ar'nun

      Looks like someone didn't get the joke.


    • Mary Sue

      why is it that leftists rarely recognize satire when they see it?

  • guest


  • JacksonPearson

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    David Gregory's a class act jackass and hypocrite. He has his own children enrolled in the same private DC school as Barack Obama, of which is being protected by armed guards. Nevertheless, if the 2nd Amendment can be tampered with, than so can the 1st, or any other part of the Constitution. Where exactly does the Constitutional meddling stop?

    • pagegl

      "Where exactly does the Constitutional meddling stop? "

      At the point that they can claim it is being ineffective and that we need something new as some academics are now trying. These academics, and many others on the left, refuse to understand that the framers were trying to limit the worse aspects of human nature, not just the issues of the late eighteenth century.

      • JacksonPearson

        "Where exactly does the Constitutional meddling stop? "
        Never, because as long as Congress is in session, they'll mess with it.

        Even though courts have chipped away at it, what's left of the Constitution is still alive and well, because federal courts are still continuously hearing cases regarding Constitutional questions. e.g., The DC court of appeals, just ruled against Obama's NLRB recess appointments, as being un Constitutional.

        • pagegl

          I tend to agree with most of your statement, but, because of so much effort by academics and even people in the media trying to make the Constitution appear to be on life support and fading fast, I believe we need to work hard to make sure it remains the law of the land.

          • JacksonPearson

            Many would like us to believe that the Constitution is dead, and/or an old outdated piece of paper. Nothing could be further from the truth.

            Just commit an un Constitutional act, that would warrant getting arrested and charged for, and see how fast they'd prosecute, to the full extent of the law. It still is, and will be for a long time to come, the supreme law of the land.

  • Gee

    "And they would no more have extended those protections to the mass media on the internet than they would have allowed every homeowner to own his own AR-15." Actually the Founding Fathers they not only would have supported every household have automatic weapons, but would have demanded that they be allowed to carry them anywhere in public.

    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." –Thomas Jefferson

    The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams