Quarantining Dissent

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I simply will not believe it is based solely on the message. No. Uh-uh.

This comment does not surprise me.

Highest numbers of protestors worldwide? Well, I don't mind that so much. Inside the country, well, he's also had the highest approval numbers too.

Perhaps you have heard of the U.S. Seventh Cavalry? Circa 1876?

Funny how you get both now-a-days.

When citizens won't believe the voice of the loyal opposition are being squelched ... and when the citizens can not remember bad things can happend to good people, it does not surprise me that you find the 50/50 split funny. I find it sad and scary.

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward
A Protest that is visible to no one, is not really much of a protest, is it? You know ... "If a tree falls in the woods . . . ."

Well the thing is, it's not a formal protest, it's disorganized group of protestors. And I think you need to file to have a special protest. And these people can do that any day of the week. Anywhere.

And they'll be given a permit, a time to place to do it, and they will not be interfering with a motorcade.

The million man march did it (OK, 250,000 man).

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Well the thing is, it's not a formal protest, it's disorganized group of protestors. And I think you need to file to have a special protest. And these people can do that any day of the week. Anywhere.

And they'll be given a permit, a time to place to do it, and they will not be interfering with a motorcade.

The million man march did it (OK, 250,000 man).

So, I need a permit to walk around in a circle carrying a sign ... but I don't need a permit to walk anywhere with a gun?

Hmmmm ??? - Mike
OK .. I know I am combining comments from another thread to this post ... but ... oh, well

 

[MisterMike]

If them's the rules. Granted I didn't write them. I see the point that the two issues are 1st and 2nd Ammendment rights that require permits now.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally posted by michaeledward
So, I need a permit to walk around in a circle carrying a sign ... but I don't need a permit to walk anywhere with a gun?

Hmmmm ??? - Mike
OK .. I know I am combining comments from another thread to this post ... but ... oh, well

In NY, you need a permit for a gun...not sure of laws elsewhere.

I think the big argument is that the supporters were allows visibility, while those in the 'disagreeing position' were shunted off to a non-visible spot, thereby giving the illusion of 100% support. The lack of media coverage of those disenting also adds to the illusion, as does the lie of the idea of a special "Free Speech Zone".

I always thought America was a free speech zone in its entirety.

Obviously, I was wrong.

 

[michaeledward]

Mister Mike is in Massachusetts, which has some pretty strict laws concerning firearms.

I now live in New Hampshire, and we have almost no laws concerning firearms. If I am not mistaken, the only permit available in NH, is to carry a concealed weapon. If I want to wear my pistol, in a holster on my hip, there are no requirements.

Seems to me the good folks of New Hampshire are crazy.

Yes ... Free Speech does seem a rare commodity these days.

 

[MisterMike]

Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California.

I think no matter where you are if you wear a pistol on your hip in public, you will most likely cause a public disturbance and it may be taken from you.

As for free speech a rarity, well, not really but I see areas where it is being diminished.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, there's a difference between the Sec. Service's imposition of--well--security, and shoving people identified as protestors off into a corner because you don't want their signs on the evening news, yes?

And second--organized vs. disorganized protest? Org. OK, disorganized right out? Hm. MM, aren't you the fella who's arguing strongly against gun control laws--that is the laws which ORGANIZE gun ownership and use? I see that you've skipped over a previously-asked, related question--doesn't the Constitution guarantee the right to bear arms as part of a, "well-regulated militia," not as a disorganized gaggle of gun owners?

Interesting picking and choosing of which principles one wants to accommodate.

 

[MisterMike]

First off, there's a difference between the Sec. Service's imposition of--well--security, and shoving people identified as protestors off into a corner because you don't want their signs on the evening news, yes?

Please PROVE to me that keeping them off the news is the ONLY reason the Secret Security is keeping these people away from a motorcade. Have you come across some documents that the rest of us haven't?

I'll reitterate my point that media coverage is not the reason for keeping the quacks away from the President. These people can get themselves aired 365 days a year with no problem. Why isn't the Secret Security chasing down poeple all over the country right now?

And second--organized vs. disorganized protest? Org. OK, disorganized right out? Hm. MM, aren't you the fella who's arguing strongly against gun control laws--that is the laws which ORGANIZE gun ownership and use? I see that you've skipped over a previously-asked, related question--doesn't the Constitution guarantee the right to bear arms as part of a, "well-regulated militia," not as a disorganized gaggle of gun owners?

I'm not saying one law is better over the other. In fact, I've stated that both the first and second ammendment rights are now governed by stricter laws (require permits). I certainly didn't say I was FOR any of them, or against one and not the other.

I'm simply putting out there what I think is the reason for the protesters being kept away from the President and of the belief it is not to "censor the media."

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California.

I think no matter where you are if you wear a pistol on your hip in public, you will most likely cause a public disturbance and it may be taken from you.

As for free speech a rarity, well, not really but I see areas where it is being diminished.

I find your choice of the word 'WORST' very interesting. In my post, I stated that Massachusetts has 'STRICT'. The word strict does not, or should not, imply a connotation of good or bad. However, the word you chose does imply that any laws concerning guns are a bad thing for society.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Unless I'm misreading, your statements--"Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California,"--clearly equate strong gun control laws with badness. Your words, not mine. Further, unless I'm drawing too much conclusions, it seems very clear that you associate California and Masachusetts with, "liberalism," and with liberals' unfair restrictions on gun ownership.

The Service, my understanding is, have kept tabs on potential threats for some time now. However, I do not know of cases in which a Democratic administration has specifically had its opposition swept out of view--even Daley didn't do that, he had heads busted right out in front. Personally, I blame clowns like Hoover and Nixon--but I'd be happy to see facts to the contrary.

And again, I find it remarkable that you are arguing for regulated free speech on the grounds that rights have to balance, but unregulated gun ownership, on the grounds that rights don't.

One point that hasn't come up in a while--part of our problem has zip to do with individuals. It has to do with corporations claiming their, "right," to flood this country with guns.

A good sign of this is that folks don't seem content with a hunting rifle, a shotgun or two, maybe a target pistol (because targets are pretty much what pistols are good for), like when I was I kid. They want more and more and more boom-stick--very much in the way that people want more and more stuff of every sort. That's not the right to bear arms--that's consumerism.

 

[MisterMike]

Unless I'm misreading, your statements--"Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California,"--clearly equate strong gun control laws with badness. Your words, not mine. Further, unless I'm drawing too much conclusions, it seems very clear that you associate California and Masachusetts with, "liberalism," and with liberals' unfair restrictions on gun ownership.

Yes.

And again, I find it remarkable that you are arguing for regulated free speech on the grounds that rights have to balance, but unregulated gun ownership, on the grounds that rights don't.

Nope, I'm not.

One point that hasn't come up in a while--part of our problem has zip to do with individuals. It has to do with corporations claiming their, "right," to flood this country with guns.

A good sign of this is that folks don't seem content with a hunting rifle, a shotgun or two, maybe a target pistol (because targets are pretty much what pistols are good for), like when I was I kid. They want more and more and more boom-stick--very much in the way that people want more and more stuff of every sort. That's not the right to bear arms--that's consumerism.

Guns aren't pushed on us by corporations. It's simple supply and demand. Now with government regulations, they have to design "safe" guns. I'll never really grasp that one.

But guns have come a long way from flint lock muskets to the shotgun to the rifle and revolvers have had their evolution as well. Are you saying these companies should not be allowed to compete as do other product manufacturers on the market?

 

[Makalakumu]

Back to the topic at hand...

In my hometown, when Mr. Cheney was on the stump for Norm Coleman, protesters were pushed off to the far corners of the parking lot as far away as they could be from the VP. Pro-bushers were lining the streets where the VP was walking in camera view. This doesn't sound like security to me. Any assassin worth his salt, will put on a Vote Bush shirt and fire away. When an 89 year old grandmother decided to join the rest of the people with her Wellstone sign, the SS took it away and had her arrested. Now that is security.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Huh. So people NEED all them guns? Just like people NEED all the crap we buy--and it has nothing, nothing at all to do with, say, marketing campaigns. OK--but then, what are corporations spending all that money on?

Lots of products are--usually with damn good reason--regulated by government. (An exception might be the Bush government's recent pursuit of Americans who buy their prescription drugs in Mexico and Canada--but to be sure, that has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the campaign contributions of major drug companies.)

Similarly, there are of course limits on free speech of many sorts. However, as far as I know this is the FIRST administration to limit speech entirely because of the image it presents on the evening news.

And again, it's odd to me that folks who are arguing libertarian views about guns would be arguing against libertarian ideas about speech and dissent.

By the way--the right to specifically target the Big Guy with protest is perhaps the oldest right of speech there is. It is directly comparable to the old commoner's right to cry their grievances to the King, and to directly ask for justice...

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Huh. So people NEED all them guns? Just like people NEED all the crap we buy--and it has nothing, nothing at all to do with, say, marketing campaigns. OK--but then, what are corporations spending all that money on?

Lots of products are--usually with damn good reason--regulated by government. (An exception might be the Bush government's recent pursuit of Americans who buy their prescription drugs in Mexico and Canada--but to be sure, that has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the campaign contributions of major drug companies.)

Similarly, there are of course limits on free speech of many sorts. However, as far as I know this is the FIRST administration to limit speech entirely because of the image it presents on the evening news.

And again, it's odd to me that folks who are arguing libertarian views about guns would be arguing against libertarian ideas about speech and dissent.

By the way--the right to specifically target the Big Guy with protest is perhaps the oldest right of speech there is. It is directly comparable to the old commoner's right to cry their grievances to the King, and to directly ask for justice...

They are Savage's. Get it? he he he
Sean

 

[Seig]

I keep seeing a lot of references from Robert about corporations pushing guns on consumers. Outside of specifically gun and hunting magazines or hunting television shows, just how many advertisements do you see for guns? I don't see a Glock ad while I am watching CSI or a Ruger ad during JAG. I haven't seen a Remington firearms ad during Navy CIS. Where does this statement of yours come from?

People buy guns because they want them, not because they are pushed on them. I am a zealous gun owner, I have them, I like them, I buy them, and I will buy more of them. No one is pushing me into this. I have complied with all applicable laws in my purchasing, ownership and carrying. What have I done wrong to justify someone else deciding I shouldn't have them and thus being enabled to take them away from me?

 

[michaeledward]

But aren't you now making two different arguements.

1 - You think Gun Manufactures don't market their products.
2 - You should be able to own as many guns as you want.

In response to (1); Of course gun manufactures push their wares. It is no different than McDonalds. If you make something that you want to sell, you have 'marketing' departments devise ways of informing consumers of their need for your product. In the firearms arena, you market your product in hunting and fishing magazines (for one example). If you run a karate studio, don't you hang out a shingle somewhere? metaphorically speaking?

In response to (2); rmcrobertson was pointing out an inconsistancy that many things are 'regulated' by the state ... without 'prohibiting' them, or 'confiscating' them ... and some feel this is not inconsistant with the 2nd amendment. For instance, I need to license my dogs with the city. I have no fear of the city coming and taking my dogs away.

But more importantly than that, (and on topic), the current administration in the executive branch of our government seems to be regulating (prohibiting) protest speech that might a)be seen by the POTUS or VP, or b) be seen in a media shot of the POTUS or VP on the evening news.

If you strongly believe your second arguement, you must believe that the adminstration is wrong in its 'issueing a permit' to the protestors, and directing those protestors where to stand as the motorcade, and tv cameras go by, right?

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

I think it's clear that he stated they do market their products in hunting magazines and during hunting TV shows...but everyting is up to interpretation I guess.

But I think the logic has to go both ways...

Why do people want to restrict guns so much and not free speech?

Granted there are things today you can't say that you did in the 60's down south...

 

[Cruentus]

Firearm manufacturures at this time are not spending the budget on large ad campaigns to market their products. You don't see gun companies advertising outside of their niche markets; a sign or logo displayed on a box or at a gun show, or gun magazines. It's not to say that mass advertizing will never happend, but it just isn't happening right now.

Now, does gun regulation hurt gun companies? Yes...so they will naturally push for deregulation, and they will naturally be proponents of those ideals. Anyone who thinks differently on this one has had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Also, the desire to buy more and more "toys" (even if its to serve a "masculine" need to have bigger, stronger, tougher weapons, tools etc.) is definatily consumerism. I say that this isn't the fault of the gun companies, but rather an inherited flaw in our system that would need to be changed from the inside out. The double edged sword of living in a country that is supposed to be "free" is that people have the right to ''Buy more" if they want. I don't like consumerism, but I like living in a free country. The solution to the problem is more structural, rather then regulatory.

PAUL

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Why do people want to restrict guns so much and not free speech?

Because Sticks and Stones do break bones.

I think this is a very clear, cogent question. And, I think it was the questions Michael Moore asked in the film 'Bowling for Columbine'. I know we all were reading that thread at one point or another ... so please ... let's not re-tread it in this thread.

We do not have the Freedom of Speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie house. And I think, we should not be free to do so.

Yet, many of the so-called 'self-proclaimed gun-nuts' protest strongly when there is a call for any restriction on gun ownership. This dicotomy is the issue at hand.

I do not, and in all likelyhood will never, own a firearm. I do believe that those of you who do own them should be trained, certified and licensed. I do believe that you should be able to own as many weapons as you wish, although, I suppose there should be some limit in the maximum clip size and / or fire rate ... but I really don't know enough about firearms to be able to describe what would be 'prudent' (gee ... I used a Bushism )

I do lastly believe that I am indeed safer in my non-gun-owning home while there is a second amendment. It just seems to me that some limits are not unreasonable.

Ready - Aim - Fire ---- Mike