Sedition..? - Page 2

Old Dog New Trick · 12-20-2016, 10:43

If some mentally deranged nutcase libtard goes and assassinates Trump because the media or social media portrays him as the second coming of Hitler (all Hitlery jokes aside) and this country goes into a swirl down the toilet bowl, then we'd only have ourselves to blame for not saying enough is enough.

At least I like to believe that those values on the right are what have prevented a mentally challenged alt-right leaning douchbag from hitting that chrome lever on the tank during the last eight years.

Liberals with guns I don't trust!

JGC2 · 12-20-2016, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Liberals with guns I don't trust!

Fortunately Americans need not be trusted to maintain their natural right to keep and bear arms. You were correct when you said it cuts both ways - the government using fear of armed rebellion by any ideology as justification to limit speech of any kind or firearms possession of any kind is exactly the type of tyranny prevented by the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Trump possibly being assassinated is not a metric to be considered when debating the legality of anti-government rhetoric or firearms ownership. We would demand the same if Hillary were elected.

Golf1echo · 12-20-2016, 11:44

I thought about your post and it occurred to me many professions have licenses from Engineers to pest control people. A certain amount of liability comes from having a license, go out of bounds and they can take it. Perhaps before the 24 hour news cycle the media- papers, magazines, radio, TV needed to compete and policed the credibility and structure from within, as well as traditional practices....

The vehicle of the media is different now. The country is divided, I'm not sure the 33% 33% 33% notion even exists any more? Many here have an awareness of how important disinformation is in an insurgency. Easier to digest in the form of credibility I think. Credibility has to be a value...

trvlr · 12-20-2016, 11:55

The rise of PEOTUS Donald Trump has sent "the left" into a tailspin, but I've also seen a lot of questionable trains of thought from conservatives. If you think no fly no buy lists, sedition, or 1A speech restriction could have merit you either don't know the Constitution as well as you think you do, or you don't like freedom as much as you think you do. Neither option is a good option.

Divemaster · 12-20-2016, 12:54

I'm not going to say that some folks on this site were kicking around the idea of taking up arms had the election gone the other way, but some folks on this site were kicking around the idea of taking up arms had the election gone the other way.

Sedition? Insurrection? Revolution? Throwing off the yoke of tyranny? Depends on which side of the aisle you're on, right?

PSM · 12-20-2016, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divemaster

I'm not going to say that some folks on this site were kicking around the idea of taking up arms had the election gone the other way, but some folks on this site were kicking around the idea of taking up arms had the election gone the other way.

Against snowflakes, are snowblowers considered "arms"?

Pat

scooter · 12-20-2016, 13:17

Every belief system will, if given the chance, legislate its beliefs into law and seek to punish non-conformers. Heinlein rightly said that conservatism versus liberalism was a false dichotomy. The world is actually divided into those who would seek to control the behavior and beliefs of their fellow man, and those who had no such desire. The efforts of conservatives to outlaw gay marriage is no different than the efforts of liberals to clamp down on public Christian adherence. The desire to disarm the people is no different than telling a guy in his living room he can’t smoke pot, which makes him docile and hungry at the worst. Clamping down on news stories that highlight facts that aren’t part of your worldview, and calling them fake news, is no different than wanting the left wing idiots put on trial for sedition. You can’t have it both ways; we are all free, or none of us are.

Never give your rulers any power you wouldn’t want in the hands of people who despise everything you believe and stand for.

blue02hd · 12-20-2016, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

Never give your rulers any power you wouldn’t want in the hands of people who despise everything you believe and stand for.

Shhh, some of my former students may be reading this thread,,,,,

Old Dog New Trick · 12-20-2016, 13:28

Always hard to argue a point in civil discussion on the internet.

I'm not advocating taking away anyone's rights - they have been (somewhat) established over the last 200+ years and argued to the point of all but a few remaining court justices can decipher what the original intent was or wasn't.

It has been determined and argued (rightfully or wrongly) that the rights enumerated in the BOR are not without limits to maintain proper order and civility under the laws passed by congress and signed by the presidents before now.

We are a nation of laws. Some we don't like, others are there to protect all of us from a few. There are hundreds of thousands of written laws in the books, many which are not enforced, selectively enforced, or stringently enforced to maintain the proper balance of individual rights and freedoms and those that maintain essential morality and civility to be one nation.

As has been said, no man is an isle (island) and neither is DJT or anyone who is or has been elected to the top position of leadership. They are still just a man (or one day woman) and they will be followed either by law of succession or election by the people. However, their untimely or sudden unnatural death will either unite or divide the nation they were elected to lead. At this particular moment in history it will be a divisive moment. Maybe after January 20, cooler heads will prevail but, before that time imagine all hell breaking loose.

My only beef with what I see and read either in public broadcast media or private for profit social media is a divisive and corrosive scourge of rhetoric being whipped into a frenzy by the majority of liberal left leaning purveyors of information to discredit, de-legitimize and disenfranchise the people who ran for office or were voted into office within the legal process. Hell, I don't even like DJT but the alternative was worse. And on that I don't know where we'd be right now; maybe armed insurrection and sedition laws being enforced in a draconian manner on anyone who dared to challenge the victor.

We have a process and a proper decorum for a changing of the guard. Let it happen and if in the end it was a bad choice...we have laws to rectify the problem through legal and constitutional means.

I'm not advocating we bring back the gallows, duals, or a noose. I'm asking about civil checks and balances to maintain order in a disorderly world.

Peace!

JGC2 · 12-20-2016, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

Every belief system will, if given the chance, legislate its beliefs into law and seek to punish non-conformers. Heinlein rightly said that conservatism versus liberalism was a false dichotomy. The world is actually divided into those who would seek to control the behavior and beliefs of their fellow man, and those who had no such desire. The efforts of conservatives to outlaw gay marriage is no different than the efforts of liberals to clamp down on public Christian adherence. The desire to disarm the people is no different than telling a guy in his living room he can’t smoke pot, which makes him docile and hungry at the worst. Clamping down on news stories that highlight facts that aren’t part of your worldview, and calling them fake news, is no different than wanting the left wing idiots put on trial for sedition. You can’t have it both ways; we are all free, or none of us are.

Never give your rulers any power you wouldn’t want in the hands of people who despise everything you believe and stand for.

Very well said.

Old Dog New Trick · 12-20-2016, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

Every belief system will, if given the chance, legislate its beliefs into law and seek to punish non-conformers. Heinlein rightly said that conservatism versus liberalism was a false dichotomy. The world is actually divided into those who would seek to control the behavior and beliefs of their fellow man, and those who had no such desire. The efforts of conservatives to outlaw gay marriage is no different than the efforts of liberals to clamp down on public Christian adherence. The desire to disarm the people is no different than telling a guy in his living room he can’t smoke pot, which makes him docile and hungry at the worst. Clamping down on news stories that highlight facts that aren’t part of your worldview, and calling them fake news, is no different than wanting the left wing idiots put on trial for sedition. You can’t have it both ways; we are all free, or none of us are.

Never give your rulers any power you wouldn’t want in the hands of people who despise everything you believe and stand for.

Agreed and the end is Sig line worthy.

Old Dog New Trick · 12-20-2016, 14:21

Golf1echo, brings up a good point. Many (most) for profit professional organizations and institutions have testing and licensing requirements, laws and guidelines in which to operate while mitigating their liabilities. File a false report, lie to cover up shoddy workmanship or failure to conduct proper permits and inspections and you will feel the wrath of government oversight. Not to mention loss of most everything worked for.

What controls other than viewership, readership, sponsors and advertising are there to keep information media from straying afar from academic and journalistic integrity and honesty? The FCC the FTC? Both are controlled by the current administration in power. Which in this case has actively encouraged civil disobedience resulting in death and destruction at taxpayers expense and family devastation.

If the media makes (more) money to sell a faulty product and no one challenges their business model, it doesn't take an economist to understand their desire to become more outlandish and sell bigger lies and sensationalism to pad their pockets. When a halfwit talking head like Beck or Williams or pick your poison from any MSM news channel can peddle lies and dishonesty and make $20M/yr this is no longer about 1st Amendment and "freedom of the press" this is opportunistic paid advertising selling a faulty product.

Old Dog New Trick · 12-20-2016, 14:42

Okay, liberal nutcase with a gun...case in point.

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Man accused of murder believed he shot Trump

http://usat.ly/2i7Ejj5

I guess every white middle aged male with pouty lips and a flowing blond hair combover has to now check out his surroundings any time of day or night to keep from being murdered just because.

I guess the brown UPS uniform decoy didn't work.

RIP Mr. Schumacher your family will miss you.

sfshooter · 12-20-2016, 15:55

This could have something to do with actions of this sort:

"Rowley also ordered Barkley to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to stand trial."

There are so many incidents today that are a product of a deficient mentality (what the media plays on at times, me thinks). Take the Sandy Hook shooter, definitely a mental case.
A 100 years ago or less our society used to institutionalize people with mental conditions as they were thought to be a threat to society. In some cases they definitely are!
False stories can incite the mentally challenged/handicapped into doing things that cause irreversible harm on others.
The licensing thing on the media wouldn't be too bad of an idea, after all a lot of electricians, heat and air techs, etc... have to be licensed to protect the public from potential harm.

It is a tricky path to tread upon as there is always more than one viewpoint.

scooter · 12-20-2016, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfshooter

This could have something to do with actions of this sort:

"Rowley also ordered Barkley to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to stand trial."

There are so many incidents today that are a product of a deficient mentality (what the media plays on at times, me thinks). Take the Sandy Hook shooter, definitely a mental case.
A 100 years ago or less our society used to institutionalize people with mental conditions as they were thought to be a threat to society. In some cases they definitely are!
False stories can incite the mentally challenged/handicapped into doing things that cause irreversible harm on others.
The licensing thing on the media wouldn't be too bad of an idea, after all a lot of electricians, heat and air techs, etc... have to be licensed to protect the public from potential harm.

It is a tricky path to tread upon as there is always more than one viewpoint.

The licensing of the media is a horrible, horrible idea. Who would grant such a license? Who would determine if they broke its terms? Who would benefit most?
I'll tell you who... The New York Times, CNN, etc. these arguments everyone here is putting forward about the need to control false narratives coming out of the media is the Exact.....EXACT.... Same argument the left leaning media is putting out about fake news. When the next Democratic administration is in office, do you think wikeaks, veritas, brietbat, or fox would get a license?

The press should be free to print or say whatever they want. If they can only say "the truth", who decides that? I bet I could get all sorts of reputable people to come out from the CDC and say gun ownership is bad for public safety. If Fox News says otherwise..... Did they lie? A government agency just said so. Revoke their license!

What you are advocating is precisely why the press was granted absolute freedom from government interference. Never, ever make sweeping changes to individual or collective rights to fix transient problems.