Taking First Amendment battle online

The Boston Globe ^ | 12/15/2003 | Hiawatha Bray

[Radix]

Despite the best efforts of Congress and the US Supreme Court, the First Amendment survives -- online.

Last Wednesday, the US Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, which deliberately trims citizens' First Amendment rights. Among other things, the law limits the ability of groups like the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the like to broadcast radio and TV ads in the run-up to a federal election.

[redrock]

A so-called 'Conservative' Congress passed the restriction on the 1st Amendment......

A so-called 'Conservative' President signed it into law......

A so-called 'Conservative' Supreme Court upheld it.......

....and now...it's being left up to us to refuse to obey it.

I think that we are up to the task at hand.

redrock

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Simply put, I know who wants to take my gun away."

Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[OXENinFLA]

That's some good stuff ya got there.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html


If you have read this yet.

[Eva]

One of the main reasons that this is important is that the communist group, MoveOn.Org is using the web to bring in foreign contributions for Dean and now Clark, as well.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

I bookmarked your link.
Thanks!

[johnb838]

When I send emails I do it for two reasons:

1) I get to vent, though you gotta be careful... don't want the guys in the black suits showing up at the door. This actually happened to a roommate I had back in '83.

2) Because it serves as a defacto "vote". They do total them up and they do pay attention. I believe I read that they consider each person that expresses an opinion to represent 5000 that have the same opinion but don't express it. So it's important. I sometimes wonder if they weight an email equally with a letter or a phone call, though, because it's so much easier. And doesn't cost anything. Yet.

[johnb838]

How do you get the media outlets to accept your ad?

[neverdem]

Thanks for posting this timely thread, Radix. Here's a link to a thread about a Congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingrey, whose rumored to be a lurker, and he is considering sponsorship of a bill to repeal the odious restrictions barring advertising 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections, respectively.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1040281/posts

Send him an email telling him that you will tell your representative to support his bill, or that you will work against your representative as an enemy of free speech at the following email address:

gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov

Say a prayer that this thread becomes very long.

[Fledermaus]

I guess now they won't. Pay double? Get them to take a stand with me? lol

Beyond that I guess I'll have to buy my own radio or TV station and then break the new "laws"! ;-)

[windchime]

Bump!

[El Gato]

Should the Internet become a loophole to undermine the federal laws meant to protect the integrity of the electoral process?" he mused. Indeed, critics say there's nothing to stop its being applied to the Net.

I think these statist SOBs see the Bill of Rights as one big loophole. (Of course, in a way, it is. But that was the point of it). Since the 'net is carried over both landlines and microwave/satellite links, I'm sure they will argue that "broadcast" includes the net. The law specifically excludes the 'net, but they'll find some black robes to rule that that only means that portion that is not "broadcast", and since it's seamless and you can't really tell, nor control, how your data is transmitted, that means that the whole 'net, save perhaps that part from your ISP to your computer, can be considered to be "broadcast".

[El Gato]

Curious. Has a stats study EVER been done to show how many crimes have been committed with legal registered guns?

What's legal about registering guns? Many states don't you know. If you meant legally purchased guns, that is another matter. I'm sure the study has been done. Probably some info in Kleck or Lott's books.

The answer of course is that criminals don't buy their guns through legitimate channels, but even if they did, how does that justify restricting my rights as a non-criminal citizen?

[El Gato]

Simply put, I know who wants to take my gun away.

You do, but Joe Sixpack may not, especially if she votes to take them away a couple of months before an election. Then they don't want you, the NRA, or anyone else to be able to tell Joe Sixpack who voted to take their gun away. Joe may not be tuned in to the various sources of this information, but if you could air and ad that said Congressman Grabber just voted to take away your gun, it might his vote. They can't have that sort of thing going on, so they are prohibiting you and like minded folks from getting together and producing and paying for that ad.

[El Gato]

I predict that they will try to regulate news stories that might have a negative effect on a politician's chance to be elected or re-elected.

They won't need to, the major media already do that for them. Of course the way they do that is to suppress negative stories about liberal gun grabbing incumbents, and playing up, or making up, stories about conservatives, especially those who understand "shall not be infringed".

[El Gato]

from the link

“It’s not just my opinion,” Mac said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.”

It would appear that Supreme Court has changed its mind, and that Congress can make laws not only respecting, but restricting, free speech and freedom of the press. this in spite of the 1st amendment, which says they can't. Pretty much makes the entire Bill of Rights not worth the parchment they were printed on, doesn't it?

[Calpernia]

HiJinx had no problem understanding me and has already gotten me the information.

So I'm just gonna ignore your post.

[El Gato]

HiJinx had no problem understanding me and has already gotten me the information.

It's not that I didn't understand you, but rather that we can't concede the other sides's points. The notion that only "registered" guns are legal is one of those points. In Free States, there is no gun registration beyond that required by the federales, which while bad, isn't as bad as in far too many states.

[Calpernia]

I DON'T CARE I have the information I was trying to get. Go split wording hairs with someone else.

[OXENinFLA]

It would appear that Supreme Court has changed its mind, and that Congress can make laws not only respecting, but restricting, free speech and freedom of the press. this in spite of the 1st amendment, which says they can't. Pretty much makes the entire Bill of Rights not worth the parchment they were printed on, doesn't it?

I hope McCain-Feingold will be tested and that it is shown that the SCOTUS were wrong to not deem it unconstitutional.

Of course it would have been nice if Pres. Bush vetoed the bill before it had a chance to become law.

I'd like to know which one of his(Bush's) "political advisors" told him that signing it would be a good move and the SCOTUS would say it was unconstitutional.

I'll tell ya one thing though, all of this is going to get me more involved politically. I live in FL and I will be working hard to get a Rep. Senator in Grahams seat.