Crazy Talk

[Roadkill Coyote]

So give the imperial federal government the ability to control all of the media, all of the drugs, and access to everybody's medical records? I can't imagine that going wrong for the American public.

The ability to control prescription drugs has been a federal power for a long time. Reporting medical records concerning people who are a threat to themselves and others is something most states are doing, or are about to start doing. What I am saying is that the yardstick used to determine who is a danger to themselves and others is broken. We need to come up with another way to measure that, and if we do not, someone else will. As for the media, I have not suggested control of all media, or most, or any significant part of the media. I have suggested we stop large, national, commercial media infotainment corporations from rewarding mass murderers, by the least intrusive means possible.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

I agree with a lot of what your saying, especially in the second point.

The first point is left to so much discussion and abuse by powers that be, that its not defendable.

Obama's administration has already tried to call vets returning from combat zones incapable of owning firearms.

Well, addressing the first part without the second is probably going to create a worse result. Most of the killers that have explicitly referred to media coverage as their motivation, have referred to acts that took place years ago. So even if we stop the positive reinforcement process now, we probably have at least a decade of increased incidence of these murders in the pipeline. I believe that public outrage is going to change the mental health side of this equation in that time frame, and if my suggestion is not defensible, then we need another one that is. Otherwise, we are going to end up with something based on the individual opinion of anyone with mental health in their title, much like the administrations current efforts.

 

[Jwryan84]

Real question is if you implemented your plan and it worked 100% what did you fix?

I already have firearms, no need to go buy any additional to do any killing. So next is a registry and confiscation.

 

[dennishoddy]

The ability to control prescription drugs has been a federal power for a long time. Reporting medical records concerning people who are a threat to themselves and others is something most states are doing, or are about to start doing. What I am saying is that the yardstick used to determine who is a danger to themselves and others is broken. We need to come up with another way to measure that, and if we do not, someone else will. As for the media, I have not suggested control of all media, or most, or any significant part of the media. I have suggested we stop large, national, commercial media infotainment corporations from rewarding mass murderers, by the least intrusive means possible.

"reporting medical records" is the main issue some of us don't agree on. Currently the VA asks all of their patients if they drink, do drugs, or own firearms.

The government thinking on this is that if you say you have any or do any of the above, they will deny ownership until you can get over any perceived PTSD, or whatever. Who determines this? The gubberment.

Who is the entity that can nullify this? The government is who. Where will this lead? You tell us.

 

[Dave70968]

I have suggested we stop large, national, commercial media infotainment corporations from rewarding mass murderers, by the least intrusive means possible.

And you think prior restraint by a federal judge would be the "least intrusive means possible?" What would be more intrusive? Pravda?

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Real question is if you implemented your plan and it worked 100% what did you fix?

I already have firearms, no need to go buy any additional to do any killing. So next is a registry and confiscation.

Well, in the first place, I don't have a plan. I have a couple of suggestions, one of which needs a lot of work. But assuming I had a complete plan, Its goal would be to substantially reduce the sort of public mass killings that are driving the gun control debate. You can't completely eliminate the problem, but these spree killings, the ones that dominate the news and drive the debate are intentionally visible and spectacular because the killers are seeking just that media reaction. If we can reduce them, we can remove the popular outcry and cut the support out from under those that do want to register and confiscate.

Speaking of registration and confiscation, did you read the third part of my original post? The part where I pointed out that trying to control the means used won't work no matter which one you choose to focus on? I realize that you are implying that my "plan" won't provide 100% safety, and then another will be required. But my suggestions have afar more limited goal than 100%, and they attack the root cause of that limited problem. The real controversy in this thread isn't about whether it would work. The real objection is whether the cost to our freedom would be too high, and whether it would further lubricate the slippery slope of governmental control. Both are very legitimate concerns.

I recognize that these are precarious times for freedom. I just believe that the confluence of the attention seeking mentally ill, the 24 hour news cycle, and political demagoguery is a greater threat than the approach I'm suggesting. I think that we are on a tightrope, and stonewalling the issue is the equivalent of freezing in place, which makes a fall less likely in the short term, but far more likely in the long.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

And you think prior restraint by a federal judge would be the "least intrusive means possible?" What would be more intrusive? Pravda?

There have been attempts for years to get voluntary action by the media, including the FBI's "Don't name them" campaign. those attempts have failed. So, it's gonna have to be involuntary. As for choosing to have it handled through the federal judiciary, it would make the process, if not the subject, transparent and provide a means to both contest and appeal the decision.

So yes, I think that my suggestion is the least intrusive means to prevent national news organizations from rewarding killers and comparing it to Pravda is a wild exaggeration. But I understand that what I'm suggesting is a damaging to your liberties and you're unhappy and disagree with me in the strongest possible terms.

 

[Dave70968]

There have been attempts for years to get voluntary action by the media, including the FBI's "Don't name them" campaign. those attempts have failed. So, it's gonna have to be involuntary. As for choosing to have it handled through the federal judiciary, it would make the process, if not the subject, transparent and provide a means to both contest and appeal the decision.

So yes, I think that my suggestion is the least intrusive means to prevent national news organizations from rewarding killers and comparing it to Pravda is a wild exaggeration. But I understand that what I'm suggesting is a damaging to your liberties and you're unhappy and disagree with me in the strongest possible terms.

I strongly urge you go to read the courts' various holdings in the Pentagon Papers cases. No, comparing a state blackout on what is and is not allowed to be reported to Pravda is not a "wild exaggeraton;" it's federally-enforced censorship, and fundamentally incompatible with the founding values of our nation.

 

[Glocktogo]

There have been attempts for years to get voluntary action by the media, including the FBI's "Don't name them" campaign. those attempts have failed. So, it's gonna have to be involuntary. As for choosing to have it handled through the federal judiciary, it would make the process, if not the subject, transparent and provide a means to both contest and appeal the decision.

So yes, I think that my suggestion is the least intrusive means to prevent national news organizations from rewarding killers and comparing it to Pravda is a wild exaggeration. But I understand that what I'm suggesting is a damaging to your liberties and you're unhappy and disagree with me in the strongest possible terms.

You've already admitted that your suggestions would create completely unacceptable side effects. First, you'll never get law abiding gun owners to turn their medical records over to the DoJ for their seal of approval. Second, you'll never EVER get a law passed abolishing the 1st Amendment, based on how big the media outlet is.

What you should focus your efforts on is creating an atmosphere where media outlets choose to not name the killers. FOX news has done pretty well on the Umpqua shooting in this regard. The other majors need to hear that and how the majority of America wants it that way. Boycotts of advertisers on segments where they focus on the killers, phone calls, letter writing campaigns, etc. All of that is going to be far more effective than a program from the FBI, which they already don't like (the FBI that is). What do they like? Money. Hit them where it hurts and they'll listen.

On mental health and guns, you need to look at my post here. https://www.okshooters.com/showthre...-at-Oregon-community-college-10-15-dead/page9 These suggestions would be far more effective than restricting gun rights by Rx.

 

[raeken45]

The ability to control prescription drugs has been a federal power for a long time. Reporting medical records concerning people who are a threat to themselves and others is something most states are doing, or are about to start doing. What I am saying is that the yardstick used to determine who is a danger to themselves and others is broken. We need to come up with another way to measure that, and if we do not, someone else will. As for the media, I have not suggested control of all media, or most, or any significant part of the media. I have suggested we stop large, national, commercial media infotainment corporations from rewarding mass murderers, by the least intrusive means possible.

While the ideas that you bring up may help, the problem is that they will be put into place by some politician or un-elected head of a letter agency. The FDA could determine that tylenol or an energy drink could have side effects that could be detrimental to somebody's mental state. Then another agency looks up your med records and sees you took tylenol 10 years ago so they put you on the list of people that can't have a gun. If they already have that much power they will say they have to confiscate the guns you already have so they head to your house. All of this of course is dependent on the political ideology of the political class and which way the will of the public is going that year. It will be used and abused by those in power at every opportunity.

The same with control of the media. You open the door for another form of media regulation and they will take full advantage to help their party or power. If you don't want news outlets to keep spreading the names of these murderers then when they start talking about it, turn the channel or cut the cord. Big news corporations only care about viewers and money so if they dont get either they will stop reporting it. The government will never be able to stop these kinds of things they damn sure won't be able to without taking liberties from every one of us.