David Gregory.. lol

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I won't comment, the others already have it covered.

Kevin

Richard S. wrote:

rberq wrote:I don't see that in the text of the amendment. But many places have laws saying you may [shoot someone], and many courts have affirmed that you may, within reason.

What I'm asking is can I just ignore the law and shoot anyone with my gun because my right to bear arms has been secured by the second amendment?
I don't see anything in the text of the first amendment that puts the press above the law either.
Having said that who's the press? Am I the press? If I rename this site NEPA Press and declare myself reporter am I now above the law?

I understand what you were asking. What I was implying, in my roundabout way, is "it depends". As usual, the devil is in the details. I doubt very much if "the press" -- a legitimate reporter -- would ever be convicted in court for possessing something simply so he could show it to you.

But you raise an excellent question, "Who IS the press"?
NY Times? Yes.
Wall Street Journal? Yes.
An ABC news special demonstrating that dowsing for water really works? Not sure.
Fox No News? NAH!
Bloggers on right-wing and left-wing web sites? Probably.
YOU? Probably. When you speak your opinions, is it freedom of speech, and when you publish your opinions, is it freedom of the press? If you declare yourself a reporter, no, you are not ABOVE the law, but maybe you are PROTECTED BY the law and can possess a big ammunition clip for purposes of photographing it and publishing it as long as you stick to that use.

rberq wrote: but maybe you are PROTECTED BY the law and can possess a big ammunition clip for purposes of photographing it and publishing it as long as you stick to that use.

I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, interested?

rberq wrote:Remember that constitutional amendment that comes just before your favorite???? Freedom of the press?

If someone from Fox No News held up the same clip, and defended owning it, how many of you would be screaming in anguish?

Sorry, that makes no sense. Mr. Gregory could talk about high capacity magazines all day long. That's his first amendment right. But possessing one in DC is against the law! Not sure why you are confused about that.

rberq wrote:

KLook wrote:Freedom of the press??? Where did you get that one? It is freedom to speak I think.

Sheesh! You can read the Second Amendment so carefully, but not the First?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Huh? See previous post. This is not a first amendment issue.

coalkirk wrote:This is not a first amendment issue.

I say yes. You say no.

You say goodbye and I say hello.
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.

Well you may want to check your coal stove vent. There may be some blockage.
The first amendment does not give anyone the right to possess anything. It does give anyone including the press to talk about anything they want to. not to own items that are banned by law. Using your twisted logic, David Gregory could have a stinger missle, a vial of crack, some yellow cake uranium and a child porn video. All are illegal to have. NOT a 1st amendment issue.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BTW, like that Beatles song.

coalkirk wrote:

rberq wrote:Remember that constitutional amendment that comes just before your favorite???? Freedom of the press?

If someone from Fox No News held up the same clip, and defended owning it, how many of you would be screaming in anguish?

Sorry, that makes no sense. Mr. Gregory could talk about high capacity magazines all day long. That's his first amendment right. But possessing one in DC is against the law! Not sure why you are confused about that.

Yea. What him say.
David Gregory should be arrested and charged if that was in fact a working 30 round Magazine. The whole problem is with people owning firearms illegally. Most of these incidents have been with illegally obtained firearms or taking firearms where they are not allowed. That magazine was illegal to possess in DC. He wants more bans and what good are the bans if people can just get away with it. If current laws were enforced more instead of more laws passed it would do more.