- Messages
- 689
- Reactions
- 797
I refuse to read, click links, buy newspapers, watch news anchors anymore that are showing the so called mass shootings. IMHO... the more I read it, the more they report it, the more non-responsible people see it, the more non-responsible people go on shooting rampages.
I get caught up in these because I know for a fact, that I am a responsible adult, that will never, go on on a shooting rampage. And I know that I am ok to read about mass shootings but by me clicking the links it rewards the news channels (and their advertisers) for airing it, therefor I refuse. I may only do this for a while, but for the last 3 or 4 so called mass shootings, I have not clicked a link. (It is actually somewhat freeing)
They, the anti-2A media crowd, are so much impeding our right to bear arms, or own ammo and magazines, or 'transfer' weapons, I wonder if we could impede their right. Yes, I am talking about the first amendment. They have that right but that certainly does not mean everyone in the country should have the right to watch all the news. Criminals, that are possible mass shooters should not be allowed to watch the news or read the paper that has things about these shootings. They might get ideas from it. We would not be removing the right of free speech, just the right of 'certain dangerous individuals' to listen or read. With all the technology today they say they can put finger print identification on guns so they wont fire unless by the registered owner. Maybe we should lobby to put retina scanners on TV's, PC's, smartphones, and ipads, and if you have any violent crime history, or played to much halo or half-line in your dorm room then No News Channel, or ipad links for you. Who cares the cost of the retina scanners... If it saves even one innocent life. They take away our 30 round magazines, we take their 30 minute segment on the latest "life of (insert name of latest shooting suspect here)". Interviewing his first girlfriend or apartment manager.
Seriously lets, look deep into the past of the last idiot, so that other future idiots know all about the crazy ideas the first one had. And lets talk about how he made the bombs, or had bullet resistant armor.... And then lets spend tax payers money for public defenders and judges to have to take these guys to trial.
I cannot wait, until some shooter gets all their ideas from one news channel and one of the victims relatives has the mean$ and the balls to sews every nickel out of that media outlet. From my reading, the 2nd Amendment does not say "the right to bear arms, of law-abiding-citizens, shall not be infringed", that is just common sense. Just because it is legal under 1A to report on and basically make a celebrity out of the last shooter doesn't mean that you cannot be held accountable for what you print.
I get caught up in these because I know for a fact, that I am a responsible adult, that will never, go on on a shooting rampage. And I know that I am ok to read about mass shootings but by me clicking the links it rewards the news channels (and their advertisers) for airing it, therefor I refuse. I may only do this for a while, but for the last 3 or 4 so called mass shootings, I have not clicked a link. (It is actually somewhat freeing)
They, the anti-2A media crowd, are so much impeding our right to bear arms, or own ammo and magazines, or 'transfer' weapons, I wonder if we could impede their right. Yes, I am talking about the first amendment. They have that right but that certainly does not mean everyone in the country should have the right to watch all the news. Criminals, that are possible mass shooters should not be allowed to watch the news or read the paper that has things about these shootings. They might get ideas from it. We would not be removing the right of free speech, just the right of 'certain dangerous individuals' to listen or read. With all the technology today they say they can put finger print identification on guns so they wont fire unless by the registered owner. Maybe we should lobby to put retina scanners on TV's, PC's, smartphones, and ipads, and if you have any violent crime history, or played to much halo or half-line in your dorm room then No News Channel, or ipad links for you. Who cares the cost of the retina scanners... If it saves even one innocent life. They take away our 30 round magazines, we take their 30 minute segment on the latest "life of (insert name of latest shooting suspect here)". Interviewing his first girlfriend or apartment manager.
Seriously lets, look deep into the past of the last idiot, so that other future idiots know all about the crazy ideas the first one had. And lets talk about how he made the bombs, or had bullet resistant armor.... And then lets spend tax payers money for public defenders and judges to have to take these guys to trial.
I cannot wait, until some shooter gets all their ideas from one news channel and one of the victims relatives has the mean$ and the balls to sews every nickel out of that media outlet. From my reading, the 2nd Amendment does not say "the right to bear arms, of law-abiding-citizens, shall not be infringed", that is just common sense. Just because it is legal under 1A to report on and basically make a celebrity out of the last shooter doesn't mean that you cannot be held accountable for what you print.
