In response to:

It's Time for Media Control

Donjindra Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:16 AM
"No one would tolerate the creation of some sort of “special circumstances” where the Fifth Amendment wouldn’t apply and someone could be forced to testify in a criminal case against themselves" This is untrue. We *have* tolerated “special circumstances” which limit the liberty in all the amendments, including the fifth. .
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:56 AM
yes,and SCOTUS says that there must be overwhelming circumstances to go against the Constitution's protections,even more so WRT the Bill of Rights.
Since nobody can show any reasonable effect their "strict gun control" would have on these massacres(without removing the original intent of the Second Amendment),it would not be Constitutional.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:57 AM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:57 AM
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:58 AM
In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be protected.

you folks come to this discussion "unarmed".
you -know- little or nothing about the subject.
Michael134 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:54 AM
Donjindra Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 12:24 PM
List them? That would be a long list. But just some obvious examples. The First Amendment doesn't protect child pornographers. It doesn't permit network TV to play an R rated movie. It doesn't permit Mormons to practice polygamy.. The Fifth Amendment under Bush did not prevent torturing prisoners to get them to testify against themselves. Nor does it stop schools from forced drug testing. Nor does it stop government from taking your property away (they merely have to call their compensation "just").

Was there anything about the Sandy Hook massacre the media got right on the day it happened? In their rush to be first, they ignored their obligation to be right. Nearly every detail they disseminated Friday was wrong, even down to the name of the killer. Their desire to sensationalize had them shoving microphones in the faces of children who couldn’t possibly comprehend the events of the day. This was just the latest example of how out of control and dangerous the media has become, and it’s time government did something to protect us.

You’re probably asking yourself, “What...