JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
It's nice to vent.

I believe however that y'all would find you might not like a world with mandatory licensing and registration of journalists. To me that's as clear as water being wet.
 
Be careful what y'all wish for okay?

The only bigger threat to this country than abolishing the 2ndA, would be abolishing the 1stA.
Imagine if you will, if gun owners were under threat, yet had no voice at all. The NRA/SAF/GOA would all be neutered without a 1st Amendment.


But..................the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st Amendment. That is what all of the liars, and hate spewing MSM reporters and politicains forget.
 
It's nice to vent.

I believe however that y'all would find you might not like a world with mandatory licensing and registration of journalists. To me that's as clear as water being wet.


The message is.............
you require registration of our guns and we will require registration of your pens and mouth............

The real message should be you try to muzzle free speech and we will use our 2nd Amendment to even defend your rights to be an azz even if it means using it on you.:).

.
 
I see no reason why an honest media should be licenced or "permitted" in order to do there job! How ever, because they are speaking in a public forum, and that word is supposed to carry only un biased truth and be supported with honest facts. I see the need for a licence or permit because a great many do not report fairly or honestly! If they break the oath of reporting they loose the right to do so! Just like breaking the law, you do it enough or severally enough, you loose rights! o_O
 
I see no reason why an honest media should be licenced or "permitted" in order to do there job! How ever, because they are speaking in a public forum, and that word is supposed to carry only un biased truth and be supported with honest facts. I see the need for a licence or permit because a great many do not report fairly or honestly! If they break the oath of reporting they loose the right to do so! Just like breaking the law, you do it enough or severally enough, you loose rights! o_O


Freedom Of speech requires NO license or permission. It is the readers or receivers duty to decipher truth from fiction. Many countries do not have the freedom of speech we have and people are prosecuted for stating a mistruth or even something the government doesn't agree with.
NO............... COLD DAY IN HELL when we will allow that to be imposed here.

Again the 2nd is designed to defend the 1st. No exceptions.
IT IS part of the Constitution.

There is truth and there is lies and everyone best learn to tell the difference and verify for themselves. That is a small price to maintain true freedom.

.
 
Don't take any of the BoR for granted.
Not much anyone is going to do about it if the FCC were to switch off NWFA. And every other gun forum.
With a gun or anything else.
Joe might generate a small mountain of legal bills, and the rest of us would be wondering what happened. But my first (or second or third) response wouldn't be to head to the gun safe.
 
Don't forget the Roseburg schlub with the "finally "found out" after a month) muslim mommy.

th?&id=OIP.M228da8bed511521c53dc950e2bd3e1d8o0&w=282&h=223&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0.jpg

th?&id=OIP.M228da8bed511521c53dc950e2bd3e1d8o0&w=282&h=223&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0.jpg
 
Any licensing scheme requires a licensing agency. Can you think of any examples of a regulatory agency taking actions you disagree with? How would you prevent the journalist licensing agency from taking actions you disagree with?

Licensing agencies routinely take enforcement actions against their licensees. What prevents the journalist licensing agency from taking enforcement action against a journalist for expressing an unpopular opinion? Do you hold any unpopular or poorly understood opinions yourself?

As a means of tweaking the nose of MSM journalists for their poor or biased coverage of guns and liberty, I get it. But to give this idea any serious credence, for longer than it takes to set your beer down, is lunacy.

Actions have consequences. I believe the action of regulating journalists would have terrible consequences for every citizen, wherever they get their news from.
 
All this said, what about me? Think I need to be licensed?
Oh no, you are one of the "responsible" journalists. We're not talking about you.......this would not affect you or those like you. It would only be for those "less desirable"...
I do think it would be fun to turn the tables on the propaganda wing of the democrat party though. Just to watch them sputter their indignation..
 
All this said, what about me? Think I need to be licensed?
ludicrous....next they will be telling me what I can and cant say on my own website blog.
yesterday I had to buy my kids registrations for there toy airplanes.

Now while the children are playing they may be demanded to show their papers...sound familiar?....the nazis were socialists too

EVERYONE MUST REGISTER! EVERYONE MUST PAY:mad:
 
Last Edited:
Guys, guys, guys! It's a tongue-in-cheek proposal. I would never want this to be the law (although Feinstein, Durbin, and Schumer definitely would and have proposed similar stuff), just as I'd never want most of the gun laws we already have to be on the books. But just maybe when "journalists" have to consider the possibility of looking down the gun barrel of the law and complying or dying they'll get the picture. Maybe they'll ratchet down their rhetoric and condemnation of "those gun nuts". The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
 
I see no reason why an honest media should be licenced or "permitted" in order to do there job! How ever, because they are speaking in a public forum, and that word is supposed to carry only un biased truth and be supported with honest facts. I see the need for a licence or permit because a great many do not report fairly or honestly! If they break the oath of reporting they loose the right to do so! Just like breaking the law, you do it enough or severally enough, you loose rights! o_O

Licensing of anything leads to corruption & a strangle hold on the given industry by those already wealthy enough to comply or bribe their way into compliance. This is clearly evident throughout recent history in everything from the ATF to the FDA.

The best hope for most industries is to promote public awareness & allow for truly independent inspections, with a frequency based on the size of the business, larger business more inspections. This is a rare case where I believe a case against a manipulating press & media could be brought to trial with the victim as the public under the greater good or in cases of pushing a war as possibly treasonous depending on frequency & severity. It would be of public benefit if their were laws to punish against knowledgable misrepresenting facts or tailoring a narrative, as well as controlling too large a portion of the media.

Another thing I've been thinking about is the issue of media during elections. Not exactly the manipulation of political sentiment, but the advertising. Many rich & powerful men own companies that own major media outlets that sell ad slots. Most of these same men own or control (by proxy or other) Super PACs & other think tanks that have "senior fellows" that populate news media 24-7 & use this platform to further a narrative that will bend public opinion to support an idea that makes them more money.

Furthering the media-PAC connection is that these men can buy ad time with political funds paid to their own companies that ends up back in their own pocket. So in the end they only money they spend on political campaigns is on the taxes (if there are any) on the income to the media companies.

This is why they own media companies, it's only been in recent decades they've learned to make them truly profitable by making the news into a reality TV circus side show.
 
Freedom Of speech requires NO license or permission. It is the readers or receivers duty to decipher truth from fiction. Many countries do not have the freedom of speech we have and people are prosecuted for stating a mistruth or even something the government doesn't agree with.
NO............... COLD DAY IN HELL when we will allow that to be imposed here.

Again the 2nd is designed to defend the 1st. No exceptions.
IT IS part of the Constitution.

There is truth and there is lies and everyone best learn to tell the difference and verify for themselves. That is a small price to maintain true freedom.

.

While I agree with this in principle, the public have been manipulated through public education & long term media exposure that positions of authority, especially politicians (aka gov) & established media figures & corporations are to be trusted as the gate keepers of truth.

Further more critical thinking has not only been discouraged, it's been almost stamped out through religious & educational institutions as blasphemy & un-American. Things like questioning the authority of a priest as the only intermediary between you & god or questioning the motives for going to war.

It's a miracle if someone that was raised in a traditional religious (organized religion) household and/or by parents that accept the official narrative of media or government, or a parental figure that isn't skeptical of authority to become an adult that is capable of critical thinking & being a skeptic themselves. Without that influence this break from conformity of thought can usually only occur with a drastic confrontation & shock exposing their cognitive dissonance for the lie it is.

This is the how & why of our current sad state of affairs.
 
They have been trying to shut up the the Pro 2nd Amendment groups for some time. That free speech can never be legitimately taken from the American Citizen.
This should clarify that well.
When it comes to defending the 2nd, they want you to lose that right, but at the same time they want the freedom to disparage the 2nd. Just the simple hypocrisy nullifies their opinion. Truth or lies or untold truths make no difference, it is still protected speech.
Places like Canada, The UK and many other nations do worse, prosecute people all the time if they don't agree or someone tells an untruth. They have no free speech. It is not an if amendment, it is the 1st, and most important Amendment.
So if you do not like what someone says for any reason, you still cannot restrict free speech. The fire in a theatre being one of the few things they excepted. Even that should not in actual practice be restricted. The consequences should be dealt with but not the speech itself.

 
Last Edited:
They have been trying to shut up the the Pro 2nd Amendment groups for some time. That free speech can never be legitimately taken from the American Citizen.
This should clarify that well.
When it comes to defending the 2nd, they want you to lose that right, but at the same time they want the freedom to disparage the 2nd. Just the simple hypocrisy nullifies their opinion. Truth or lies or untold truths make no difference, it is still protected speech.
Places like Canada, The UK and many other nations do worse, prosecute people all the time if they don't agree or someone tells an untruth. They have no free speech. It is not an if amendment, it is the 1st, and most important Amendment.
So if you do not like what someone says for any reason, you still cannot restrict free speech. The fire in a theatre being one of the few things they excepted. Even that should not in actual practice be restricted. The consequences should be dealt with but not the speech itself.


Interesting video...i fast forwarded through some of it.
the logic expressed can be applied to virtually any Amendment including the 2nd.
wish they would hold a lecture like this in every school in the nation, every year.

And she ended it with a quote from good 'ole Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." :s0163:
 
Hell, they have been known to fire off hatred, libel, slander and general innacuracies in the news in fully automatic mode without a thought to the damage they inflict. They not only need to be registered, but be profiled by psychiatrists!o_O
 
Interesting video...i fast forwarded through some of it.
the logic expressed can be applied to virtually any Amendment including the 2nd.
wish they would hold a lecture like this in every school in the nation, every year.

And she ended it with a quote from good 'ole Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." :s0163:
There was a time when that WAS taught.
 
Don't register the journalists. Register those who wish to purchase or use a newspaper, book, or any other means of disseminating information, including electronic forms. Require passing a reading and comprehension test as part of the registration.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top