It is unseemly for the Press Herald to run an op-ed piece by Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association’s hatchet man for gun rights, seeking to pass the blame for recent and continuing tragic gun deaths on to the underfunded mental health programs of the state and nation…
…You might as well run an op-ed piece by a Taliban spokesman blaming terrorism on lack of mental health care in Afghanistan as run this piece.
Shame on you for giving Cox this chance to spread his disinformation.
Source: Another View: Paper exercised poor judgment in running pro-gun rights op-ed – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
Wait, it gets better.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bruce L. Rockwood is a resident of Damariscotta and professor emeritus of legal studies at Bloomsburg (Pa.) University.
And no, I am not surprised. The Constitution is a “living” document that can be choked to death whenever it suits the Opposition, specially when having an opposing view disrupts the carefully crafted Narrative against the Second Amendment.
Never forget: When they show contempt for the 2A, you can bet the house the rest of the Bill Of Rights will be treated the same way.
Hat Tip to Greg T.
15 thoughts on “How dare you have First Amendment Rights!”
On a normal day, a normal man can’t normally accuse a Leftwad of intellectual honesty. I mean, these guys use their first amendment rights to advocate the stripping of our first amendment rights. One would almost think they expect to be immune from such malfeasance, should the table be turned upon them…
This is how I feel; Use their own pride and prejudice against them. And they will be exposed for their narrow minded bigotry for the general public to see.
Someone once parsed the word “emeritus”. “e” means out, and “meritus” means deserved. Fits this knucklehead to a “t”.
You peasants aren’t authorized to use any of those rights. Can’t have any dissent amongst the lower classes.
Hope this doesn’t go into the spam folder. Lol
Can someone – anybody at all – show me where anybody’s First Amendment rights are being trampled? First of all, the 1A only deals with the feds and the States – it has no power or sway over what a newspaper does or does not choose to print. Second, the Prof. said it was “unseemly” and said “Shame on you” to the newspaper for having printed Chris Cox’ op-ed piece . I do not see where he is calling for the government to prevent the paper from publishing it or anything like it.
People throw “Constitutional rights” around without realizing what and where the boundaries of those right are. If they extended, as you and Miguel seem to imply, then I should be able to claim a “Constitutional right” to post anti-gun, racist, terror-supporting stuff here without Miguel being able to block any of it.
Go untwist your panties.
Actually if I do anything to stop you from the free exercising of your speech like undue pressure to a newspaper or sabotaging your audio equipment at a gathering so your message cannot be distributed it does become an infringement of your civil rights, to wit the First Amendment.
No, Miguel, not unless you are a government. It may be a crime to crime to damage his equipment.
But only governments can violate constitutionally rights. These are rights protected against government action, not against individuals. I can ban you from writing anything I like on my blog; you can ban anything you like on yours. (I don’t have a blog, BTW, and nave no interest in starting one. Too late to the game anyway).
Doesn’t mean the guy isn’t a hypocritical dufus. He is. But he’s not violating any constitutional rights.
Groups like CSGV are getting to that point. IE: Swatting
This could be an effective response to swatting – good point.
That makes doing the stuff listed a crime. But the crime is NOT an infringement of the Constitutional right. As said before, only the government (federal or State) can do that – because the 1A is there to keep The Government from infringing on the right.
But now I want you to show me a) the two or more persons who are conspire[ing] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or c) the two or more persons [who have] go[ne] in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured.
All you have is one jackass expressing his opinion about an opinion made by someone he considers a jackass. And some other folks trying to scream that the first person is infringing on the rights of the rights of the second person – which of course the first person cannot do because he is not The Government!
Get over it. Stop trying to make a mountain out of an open-pit mine.
So only government types and people under the color of the law can violate Civil Rights?
They don’t want any agenda but THEIRS out there!
The constitutional rights we exercise are affected constantly by court rulings steered by public opinion. We have had SCOTUS ruling for slavery and segregation because the war of opinion was won by the majority. This guy may have no authority to directly violate your rights, but he is a tool to direct the majority toward his opinion. If left unanswered his kind could turn the majority to get the gov or the courts to rule that his idea of what the right means is the proper form of the right. How did we end up with the NY or CT safe acts or any of the 22K other gun regulations? There is nothing sacred about the 2nd A if you are not defending it. The gun grabbers had won in the court of public opinion through most of the last century and got thousands of restrictions passed. So indirectly he is violating my 2nd A rights by calling for the courts and gov to do his dirty work.
Stop trying to make one thing into another. “Violating civil rights” is not “infringing Constitutional rights”. The concept should not be all that hard to grasp, but folks seem to want to have an impossible time differentiating between the two.
Not that I am doubting your word, but I would not mind reading constitutional works where they make a difference between civil rights and constitutional rights. If you don’t mind sharing with us.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.