When the first two items in the Bill of Rights are at odds, there's no such thing as an easy choice.This makes me wonder what version of the First Amendment gets taught in school these days. I mean, the version I learned is printed right there atop the editorial page every day and it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. It takes a silly-putty-like stretch to get a handgun owner database out of that. (Which, given the odd nature of Indiana's gun laws, is purt' near what a list of pink card holders would be.)
And speaking of Amendments, let's discuss the Second, especially the part about not being infringed. Indiana's pistol permit law, as the editorial mentions "...requires good character for gun permits", and it also requires the applicant to be a "proper person". For those who slept through American history classes, when that law was written, "good character" and "proper person" were phrases that meant "neither especially swarthy nor notably vagrant; not prone to popery nor possessing Wobbly sympathies." After I've jumped over these various infringements to exercise my right to bear arms, the last thing I need is some wannabe Clark Kent claiming he has the right to tell everybody where I live.
16 comments:
I had first an English teacher, then an English professor who would flip their shit if they read that rubbish. It was taught that in "professional" writing, one does NOT use contractions. Save your contractions for casual and informal use, not printing in a professional context.
That is completely off topic to this, but it is the first thing I noticed and it is a sure sign of a lazy writer.
-Rob
The writing in newspapers is actively cringeworthy these days. Neither precise and formal, nor casual and entertaining, and yet it manages to combine the worst soporific qualities of the former with the most egregious sophomoric ones of the latter.
Well put.
The thing that kills me about these people is the faith they have that the First Amendment is all they need to preserve freedom. They simply don't get that the Second Amendment is there to protect their First Amendment rights -- and that the Framers said as much on numerous occasions.
I don't believe they want to protect freedom, I believe they want to protect an ideology.
That's the only way I can see folks believing in only certain parts of the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to have others believe you are pro-freedom when you oppose freedom.
I think it is time to put forth and use the First Amendment and publish all information about the Indy Star editorial people.
It is our right to know who is publishing those opinions, right?
Tom,
Of course, you are correct; their version of freedom is not what we would define as freedom.
You guys may want to check this out: Says a lot about Indy Star editors:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/pattersoncoffey.htm
Big Editor of the IndyStar
SWARENS, TIMOTHY M & TINA M H/W
Parcel #9044277 Township:WAYNE Address: 8716 CHAPEL GLEN DR
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46234
Property Taxes due: $1,319.59
I think too many people interpret the right to free speech as "the right to speak without challenge." Unfortunately, they're all over, and on both sides of the aisle.
I've always thought that the second amendment was the most important, simply because the other nine won't stand for long without it.
Please add the fact that until the late 1940's Klan membership was a badge of good character in Indy.
In fact, there is some discussion among we geezers whether Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio had the largest per capita Klan membership. At the moment, the Sucker State is in the lead but Illinois could lose out.
At any rate, if the Indy Star's editor is a native Hoosier, his grandfather almost certainly was a Klansman.
Stranger
I don't see how limiting access to a CCW database infringes on the 1A rights of anyone, any more than me refusing to give them my bank account numbers for publication.
The problem is that modern journalism does not involve work or investigation, all they do is repeat press releases, often without even fact checking them.
Part of what I sent to them:
Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. App. 1980):
"We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry
the right to bear arms for their self-defense. Furthermore, in
Matthews v. State, supra, our Supreme Court held that if it is
determined under IC 35-23-4.1-5 that the applicant has met the
conditions of the statute, the superintendent has no discretion to
withhold the license. 148 N.E.2d 337."
(http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/schubert_v_debard.txt)
It's seems to be one of those days where misconstitutionalism is rampant. In a smooth move, that involved a stealth edit sans statement of retraction, accusations of unconstitutionalism were leveled at Trijicon--and last I checked, the private firm was not a department of the federal government.
I read the comments to this article. Wow.
The legal scholars view of the original amendments is that they cannot be removed, as they are an integral part of the Constitution. They were required before the states would ratify, and some of those original states have provisions in their own that would automatically remove themselves from the Union if the Constitution is altered. Would make for interesting times if BO attempted this.
RevolverRob: Some, but not all, of my professors taught me the same thing. As far as my j-school adviser/instructor went? Not so much. He was too busy trying to force me to print unsubstantiated rumors about a fellow professor with whom he had a long-running disagreement to worry about whether I was writing well or not.
And no, I didn't finish j-school - I got sick of defending my ethics to the adviser AND other j-school students, so I got out of there after two years.
Have the intrepid journalists and editors of the Indy Whatever made any effort to venture into the fearsome heart of enemy territory and actually meet any CCW citizens?
Courage and an unwavering commitment to finding and publishing the TRVTH is apparently their proclaimed hallmark. So, is it possible that the heirs of our country's proud publishing heritage have not ACTUALLY met either singly or en masse real, breathing CCW holders?
That really ought to be remedied, and where better to meet these fine folks, than right out in front of the building which houses their newspaper enterprise.
A group of CCW folks could in fact, carry signs identifying themselves, just so three would be no mistaking them...for...say..felons in lockup, or some other easily understandable reporting oversight.
Given the lagging profits of the newspaper business, this reporters' invitational event should be just the thing to boost circulation.
Heck, electronic media, and camera bloggers and who knows who could participate. Get all those words right on record, y'know?
Just prolly an oversight on the part of the publishers that they haven't made a large public effort to personally meet and interview a wide demographic spectrum of Indianan's CCW citizens.I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to rememdy that omission, when fifty or hundred of you were readily available in plain sight of the editors window, doncha think?
nolibri -- motto of the Aunties; nolibri for anyone, exceptin' their own superior asses.
Post a Comment