Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

[bwframe]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

 

[PaulWest]

How many alibis for the serial failures of socialism/communism have we heard yet its proponents are not the least bit dissuaded

If we fail to resist this, we are subjected to the troubles needlessly; and there are real barbarians at the gate. If we fall, our like may not be seen again

I would bet the majority of "socialists" these days have no idea what history has to say about it. However, there's gotta be a few who are aware and yet push for socialism anyway. Those are the dangerous ones - or, well, they would/will be if they get their hands on any kind of authority or power - and they should absolutely be stood up to. The kids - the college kids who want to be socialists - they dont know any better.

They have no heart or brains to back up their vicious intents. And although their power is borrowed, its still effective enough to be taken seriously.

The good news is that these people are weak. Bring your A game and the win should be relatively easy.

 

[Vigilant]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

BUuuuuuuRN!!!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

Well, I guess some would be ok with the president speaking out about limiting the speech of others. I personally think, he should stay in his lane.

 

[phylodog]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

Bingo. It was just fine for his predecessor to bow (first) to leaders of other nations and beg for forgiveness for things this country has done (absolutely not his place) but we are to be outraged about this.

We haven't produced a politician worth admiring in a long, long time.

 

[churchmouse]

Bingo. It was just fine for his predecessor to bow (first) to leaders of other nations and beg for forgiveness for things this country has done (absolutely not his place) but we are to be outraged about this.

We haven't produced a politician worth admiring in a long, long time.

I think with the current state we are in we will not see another one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bingo. It was just fine for his predecessor to bow (first) to leaders of other nations and beg for forgiveness for things this country has done (absolutely not his place) but we are to be outraged about this.

We haven't produced a politician worth admiring in a long, long time.

I don't remember anybody on this board thinking that, actually it was the opposite. There was outrage.... and now there's not? Further, neither of those acts of the former president speculated on limiting the rights of Americans.

 

[AtTheMurph]

So we don't view the 1st Amendment in the say way we the 2nd? How is the FCC different from that of the BATFE? Reasonable restrictions on speech, I guess.

It isn't a restriction on the press but on the use of the radio frequency that the government regulates. Whichever network he is threatening to lose their license is still free to publish in any manner their work. They just may not be able to do so over the airwaves.

That's the difference. Controlling a certain band of the radio spectrum is not 'freedom of the press'. They can publish on the internet, on paper, a magazine, etc. There is no abridging the freedom of the press in revoking an FCC license to broadcast over the air.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It isn't a restriction on the press but on the use of the radio frequency that the government regulates. Whichever network he is threatening to lose their license is still free to publish in any manner their work. They just may not be able to do so over the airwaves.

That's the difference. Controlling a certain band of the radio spectrum is not 'freedom of the press'. They can publish on the internet, on paper, a magazine, etc. There is no abridging the freedom of the press in revoking an FCC license to broadcast over the air.

Not so fast. The government hasn't always regulated it the airways. FM, for instance, was created privately, and AM broadcasters lobbied the government to regulate it to suppress competition. At least to me, that seems like another instance of govt overreach, which we are so used to now, we simply accept it.

 

[Woobie]

It isn't a restriction on the press but on the use of the radio frequency that the government regulates. Whichever network he is threatening to lose their license is still free to publish in any manner their work. They just may not be able to do so over the airwaves.

That's the difference. Controlling a certain band of the radio spectrum is not 'freedom of the press'. They can publish on the internet, on paper, a magazine, etc. There is no abridging the freedom of the press in revoking an FCC license to broadcast over the air.

It is a de facto attack on the 1A rights of that network. If you had a business on an island, and the government said "do business how we like, or we will close the bridge", then they are not restricting access to a public road for public safety. They are attempting to control your business, and using one of their tools to do it. Certainly you can buy a ferry and do an end around. But they have forced your customers to change their habits, which some will not. And you then have to make a major investment.

Telling CBS, for instance, they can't use the frequencies they own because you don't like what they say is restriction on the press. And it is unrealistic to say it isn't because they could just print a newspaper instead.

Frankly the FCC has one narrow purpose, and it isn't to decide what goes out on the airwaves. They simply make sure certain types of organizations are using the frequencies within certain bands, and then that not more than one user is on a particular frequency. In other words, they simply exist to prevent conflict. Anything they do beyond that is a waste of tax dollars and an over reach of government.

 

[Woobie]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

He is an employee of the government. He is subject to certain boundaries as a condition of employment. He can say what he likes, but not while employed in that capacity. You know, like an NFL player.

Besides, the President's word is always a policy influence. He can't say he prefers ribeye over filet without causing a whole host of headaches and controversy.

 

[ghuns]

It is a de facto attack on the 1A rights of that network...

Seems many are just fine with that because they don't like what the network is saying.

Of course the same people get pi$$ed when antifa goons attempt to silence conservatives.

 

[chipbennett]

What an idiot.

Actually, it's really freaking brilliant. Next-level means of getting the left to hoist themselves on their own petard of "reasonable regulations" of the exercise of second amendment-protected rights.

 

[chipbennett]

He is an employee of the government. He is subject to certain boundaries as a condition of employment. He can say what he likes, but not while employed in that capacity. You know, like an NFL player.

Besides, the President's word is always a policy influence. He can't say he prefers ribeye over filet without causing a whole host of headaches and controversy.

Umm... "elected office-holder" != "employee of the government". He is subject only to the bounds enumerated in the Constitution. And I'm pretty sure that broccoli managed to survive GHWB.

 

[Woobie]

Umm... "elected office-holder" != "employee of the government". He is subject only to the bounds enumerated in the Constitution. And I'm pretty sure that broccoli managed to survive GHWB.

Hired by U.S. Taxpayers. Paychecks written by U.S. Treasury. Sworn to uphold the Constitution. How sharp is that knife you're using? I'm having trouble splitting this hair with mine.

I get that there are real differences, but functionally within my comment it makes no difference.

 

[T.Lex]

Hired by U.S. Taxpayers. Paychecks written by U.S. Treasury. Sworn to uphold the Constitution. How sharp is that knife you're using? I'm having trouble splitting this hair with mine.

I get that there are real differences, but functionally within my comment it makes no difference.

You don't understand. The Donald gets a pass (not necessarily from chip, but from many INGOers and voters) because he's "not a politician."

 

[Woobie]

You don't understand. The Donald gets a pass (not necessarily from chip, but from many INGOers and voters) because he's "not a politician."

What was I thinking? And since he donates his paychecks, his oath is waived as well. I didn't even think of that. Mea Culpa

 

[chipbennett]

Hired by U.S. Taxpayers. Paychecks written by U.S. Treasury. Sworn to uphold the Constitution. How sharp is that knife you're using? I'm having trouble splitting this hair with mine.

I get that there are real differences, but functionally within my comment it makes no difference.

"Elected" != "Hired".

Taxpayers cannot "fire" an elected official, in the same way that a hired employee can be fired (though from what I understand, such firing is extremely difficult for someone hired into the public sector). There are constitutional provisions for removing an elected official from office, including (depending on the office) impeachment by other elected officials, and recall elections.

Likewise, I do not believe that public-sector employees are made to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for employment, in the same manner that an elected official is constitutionally/statutorily required to swear, as a condition for taking office.

So, no: being an elected official is in no way whatsoever analogous to being an NFL player, with respect to having to follow the dictates of one's employer.

I'm FAR more concerned with Republicans failing to repeal ObamaCare, failing to pass tax reforms, sitting on suppressor and federal reciprocity legislation, and meanwhile supporting a Trojan Horse bump-fire stock ban, than I am about the president - any president - using the bully pulpit.

 

[Woobie]

"Elected" != "Hired".

Taxpayers cannot "fire" an elected official, in the same way that a hired employee can be fired (though from what I understand, such firing is extremely difficult for someone hired into the public sector). There are constitutional provisions for removing an elected official from office, including (depending on the office) impeachment by other elected officials, and recall elections.

Likewise, I do not believe that public-sector employees are made to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for employment, in the same manner that an elected official is constitutionally/statutorily required to swear, as a condition for taking office.

So, no: being an elected official is in no way whatsoever analogous to being an NFL player, with respect to having to follow the dictates of one's employer.

I'm FAR more concerned with Republicans failing to repeal ObamaCare, failing to pass tax reforms, sitting on suppressor and federal reciprocity legislation, and meanwhile supporting a Trojan Horse bump-fire stock ban, than I am about the president - any president - using the bully pulpit.

Actually a lot of employees of the federal government swear an oath to the constitution. Most, maybe. FBI, ATF, DoD, etc. All elected officials swear the oath.

But hey, since the mechanism by which the president is installed is different than the secretary down the hall, he can attack the constitution with impunity. Unless he's a democrat, of course.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually a lot of employees of the federal government swear an oath to the constitution. Most, maybe. FBI, ATF, DoD, etc. All elected officials swear the oath.

But hey, since the mechanism by which the president is installed is different than the secretary down the hall, he can attack the constitution with impunity. Unless he's a democrat, of course.

Federal employees, sure. (I actually either wasn't aware of that, or had forgotten.)

But your straw man is really more what I'm arguing against. Both the president and the secretary down the hall retain their first amendment-protected rights.