Serbia, which like the USA, has had recent violent mass killing, one including children at a school, is demanding a ban on the entertainment’s world of violent content.
Finally, a nation recognizes why mentally unstable men (some women) are being radicalized to kill—the entertainment industry which owns the news medias and their violent entertainment which includes how they deliver the news, especially of these mass killings.
Censorship is needed.
Next, politicians who radicalize the mentally unstable and irreligious, with pro-death abortion rhetoric, assisted suicide (homicide) and euthanasia (man slaughter) need to be banned too and laws to prosecute those who kill innocent human life.
It’s not that difficult!
20 comments:
Alexis de Tocqueville: "The sovereignty of the people and the liberty of the press may therefore be looked upon as correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press and universal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed."
Were we to censor the press, we would join China, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, and North Korea.
That is not the club we want to belong to.
Duplicity is thy name as you are in favor of curtailing the 2nd amendment but not the first. Breathtaking constitutional hypocrisy.
The USA and the UK did very well in the period of censoring movies.
Btw, thanks for taking the bate.
Or is it bait?
Every right in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is "curtailed" by law or regulation. Every one of them.
A felon cannot, in most jurisdictions, own a gun. A 10 year old cannot buy a gun.
Fr K belongs to Lib World where the MSM routinely hides information detrimental to the Dems (killing babies up to birth, sexually grooming children, Republican governors sending illegal aliens to Dem “sanctuary” cities where the hypocritical mayors whine like babies. Every recent mass shooting has been perpetrated by mentally ill people on the left, something our evil MSM won’t acknowledge, instead beating the tom-tom for “reasonable” gun control - see Chicago for that. Yes his world is as delusional and make believe as Mark Thomas’ raptured view of the present papacy. I recall when Tipper Gore tried in vain to get Hollyweird and the Networks to clean up their act. That was a time when some Dems still had a moral compass - but that was on a planet, far far away and long long ago. Full disclosure - I was a Dem then, but I evolved because I was able to face the inconvenient facts - something Father K cannot do a la Mark Thomas
What about the rest of the CNN report?:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/europe/serbia-reacts-school-shooting-intl/index.html
“This never happened in Serbia before. We only heard about this [happening in] the United States. You could never dream that this would happen here,” Belgrade resident Marko Kovacevic told CNN. “This is the worst thing that happened in Serbia since the bombing in 1999,” another resident, David Stevens, told CNN at a vigil in Belgrade.
The reaction was swift. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić promised on Friday, just hours after the second shooting, that the government will make urgent changes to the country’s firearm legislation.
He proposed tougher conditions for people who wish to purchase weapons and a national gun buyback program for those who can’t fulfill those conditions.
“Great nations managed to find solutions after big tragedies,” Vučić said during a news conference on Friday. “We have to find the way to live freely and to confront this evil,” he said.
The government is also proposing a two-year moratorium on the issuing of new gun permits and a review of existing permits within the next three months.
It is also looking to potentially ban cell phones from schools and put new regulations on social media – specifically aimed at “content that can seriously harm the physical, mental or moral development of minors.” . . .
[Serbia] has the highest level of civilian gun ownership in Europe, and the fifth-highest in the world – a legacy of years of conflict in the 1990s. But getting a gun legally is a complicated process that requires a background check, medical check and a training course. The person wanting a gun also has to prove they have a good reason to own one.
Remember the time when we were all supposed to be terrified of Islamic terrorists and so the government imposed all kinds of restrictions, including finally a Trump Executive Order that was actually constitutional (unlike the first two)?
What happened to all that? Apart from the stabbing of Salman Rushdie last year, it appears that there hasn’t been an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2017:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
But now we are the terrorists who terrorize ourselves. We responded forcefully to Islamic terrorism. Why don't we do the same to the current scourge?
Here is more evidence that we live in a lunatic asylum. The third incident is from today:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/kansas-city-ralph-yarl-shooting-tuesday/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-woman-shot-killed-homeowner-after-car-pulled-into-wrong-driveway
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/us/louisiana-hide-and-seek-shooting/index.html
This is a country in which you had better not ring the doorbell of the wrong house or turn into the wrong driveway or play hide and seek on someone’s property in a rural area, especially, one assumes, if you are Black. (Yes, I know, they don’t report cases in which perhaps many people do these things and nothing untoward happens. We will never know. But should it happen at all?)
3-Minute Civics: Can my constitutional rights be limited?
By TRACY HAHN-BURKETT
For the Concord Monitor
Published: 5/10/2020
"Some limits on constitutional rights are well established. Consider the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In our democracy, we can speak freely. We can even criticize the government at every level – a freedom that is forbidden to people in a number of countries around the world. We rightly treasure this guarantee in our Constitution.
But as just about everyone knows, you can’t shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. Why? Because such an act would result in such danger to the public that preventing that danger overrides an individual’s right to that speech. In other words, the government has “a compelling state interest” in preventing this kind of speech.
Of course, the government isn’t saying that the word “fire” can’t be spoken in a theater at all, or that only you, individual reader, can’t shout “fire.” In fact people can casually discuss a fire, and the restriction is broadly applied; no one is permitted to shout “fire” without cause. The government is “narrowly tailoring” the restriction it has placed on freedom of speech, and it’s regulating the “time, place and manner” of the speech, not the speech or the speaker themselves."
From How Does The Constitution Limit Individual Rights? The Brown Law Firm, Feb 21, 2022:
"Any speech that is, for example, used to incite a riot is not protected by this (The First) amendment. The First Amendment also grants the freedom of religion, except in cases where practicing that religion endangers the public."
From Limiting constitutional rights by law
from Part I - Constitutional rights: scope and limitations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
"Legal authority to limit a right
In a constitutional democracy, a constitutional right cannot be limited unless such a limitation is authorized by law. This is the principle of legality. From here stems the requirement – which can be found in modern constitutions’ limitation clauses, as well as in other international documents – that any limitation on a right be “prescribed by law.” At the basis of this requirement stands the principle of the rule of law. Every provision limiting a constitutional right must derive from a legal norm whose authority can be traced back – either directly or indirectly – to the constitution itself. If this authority cannot be found, the limitation is unconstitutional. It can be said that in these matters the principle of legality – and the authorization it requires – is a threshold requirement. It is the legal “threshold” to the laws of proportionality. If the legality requirements are not satisfied, there is no need – and no reason – to examine the proportionality issue."
Etc etc etc
Just read a comment giving the following statistics following a report on Fox News website:
“Gun deaths 2022 Source GVA.
44,350 total. Minus 24,090 (Suicides 54.3%) = 20,260
Minus 14,192 (Gang Violence 32% (big metros), source CDC,WHO, FBI)=6,068
Minus 1,402 (LEOS involved 3.2%)= 4,666
Minus 1,193 (Defensive Use 2.7%) (roughly half are killed)=4,066
Minus 1,624(Unintentional/accidental 3.7%) (roughly half are killed)=3,266
Update GVA lists 671 Domestic violence(murder/suicide) incidents or roughly 350 Murders involving domestics
Total remaining firearm homicides nationwide 2,916
The problem rests in large metro areas with gang violence.”
This comment is followed by a response:
“So you're saying guns are inherently unsafe. Got it.”
Mark,
The evidence we live in a lunatic asylum:
1) Abortion is healthcare;
2) Mutilating children in the name of the transgenderism is “gender affirming” and parental consent is not required but it is for getting your ears pierced;
3) Producing an ID to vote is racist whereas it is not for almost any other activity, including welfare, boarding a plane, etc;
4) it is racist to enforce borders but when Democratic controlled sanctuary cities start to receive a pittance of illegal aliens crossing the border they cry foul;
5) providing “reparations” in Free States to people who were never slaves and the vast majority of taxpayers whise ancestors never owned slaves (by rights the DNC should be paying them rather than the RNC which was formed to free the Democrats slaves);
6) Democrats should be banned from owning guns since the vast majority of gun violence is committed in Democrat controlled cities by their partisans; and
7) suppressing free speech at universities, allowing men to participate in womens’ sports and bathrooms, etc.
Strange none of this exists on the Republican side of the aisle. I could create even a longer list if you like.
It has been claimed, "Every recent mass shooting has been perpetrated by mentally ill people on the left,..."
"However, The man authorities have identified as the shooter [Mauricio Garcia] who murdered eight people and wounded at least seven others at a mall in Allen, Texas, on Saturday, Mauricio Garcia, appears to have been a white supremacist. He sported Nazi tattoos and wore a patch on his vest that said “RWDS,” which stands for “Right Wing Death Squad.” (Hispanic-Americans often identify as white, and as scholar of white power movements Kathleen Belew noted on Twitter, today’s militant right holds together largely because of their interest “in hurting vulnerable communities, antisemitism, anti-Islam, anti-trans, misogynist violence.”)" - Heather Cox Richardson
It has been claimed that voter suppression tactics aren't really voter suppression tactics.
However, "Ohio, Arkansas, South Dakota, Idaho, and Florida have all passed voter suppression laws this year and that the new laws put in place after 2020 have worked. Minority and youth voting have dropped significantly. Since 2008, Black voting in states dominated by Democrats has increased by 1.8 points; in Republican-dominated states it has dropped by four points. In Georgia, Black participation rates dropped from 47.8% to 43.2% between 2018 and 2022. Hispanic participation dropped from 27.6% to 25.1%, and the youth vote dropped from 33% to 26%." - Mark Elias
TJM:
Why are you changing the subject—again!
Mark,
Why can’t you address the evil that permeates the Dem Party?
The MSM trying to spin this recent shooting is hilarious - not a MAGA shooter to be found. You can now be a White supremacist if you are Mexican or African American. I am surprised the transgender leftist shooter in Nashville has not been denominated such! Notice how that story has beem memory holed already?
Fr K and others,
Regarding tattoos...
That is something, like Reformation history, and modern European and Church history, I know a little about.
When our state's criminal records went from card to computer in 1987 - (which I assisted in; not as a police officer, but in my first year as civilian government employee of.....)
There was for each person with a criminal record a category: tattoos and any distinguishing features.
Tattoos can sometimes mean something but often mean nothing.
For example, my eagle tattoo and skull tattoo done on my left shoulder aged about 22 while drunk with fellow recruits of.....indicates what about me now?
Almost nothing.
My uncle who served in the....Navy during WW2 while drunk in a certain port while doing the dangerous job with comrade sailors delivering fuel/gasoline to the UK had a certain common tattoo of a certain type of woman done on his leg and a tattoo on his upper arm re his political allegiance while in early 20s
In mid life, and in retirement from the Navy and the .... department - what are the chances those tattoos still reflect the same attitude to women and the same political allegiance as an older and wiser man?
If tattoos don't see too much Sun or rarely see sun, a 30 to 40 year old tattoo may LOOK like it was recently done.
Regarding guns and gun laws -
I and others have known criminals who can have for example high IQs and be brilliant chess players but be functionally illiterate.
They have the capacity to buy guns, sell guns, sometimes use guns without being able to spell either 2nd Amendment or Port Arthur massacre.
The Australian man who shot and killed more than 50 Muslims praying in a NZ mosque...where do you think he purchased his weapons from...
Not so long ago in Sydney, a 15 year old Muslim boy, radicalised by online radical material went to a Police HQ in Parramatta and shot a police accountant in the face killing him; 2 young officers then had to shoot the boy dead. The person who sold this boy the gun he used is in the news again lately. His sentence for various offenses was only 15 years "on the top" with a non parole period of 9 years; but who sold guns to him? Often those higher on the "food chain" re sale of unregistered guns never do any jail time...
The whole issue of guns and gun laws is not a simple, clear cut issue.
I note contributors here who significantly claim - high deaths by gunshot wounds in big cities with strict gun laws. I think this is an important point.
Also:
Criminals and political extremists of the left or right in almost every nation on earth can purchase guns, various weapons etc quite easily if they have the money and an easily acquired connection...no laws will change that.
TJM:
Because your whataboutism is a transparent attempt to change the subject, that’s why. And I was trying to engage in an adult conversation on the topic addressed by Father McDonald in this thread, not trade taunts on the playground.
Paul,
“The whole issue of guns and gun laws is not a simple, clear cut issue.”
You are correct, of course. And the examples you give demonstrate that stricter gun control laws will never completely eradicate gun violence. But then, no-one realistically suggests that it will. What people hope for, I think, is what Nicholas Kristof calls “harm reduction” in a NYT article I posted on another thread. Here is the link again:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/opinion/gun-death-health.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Post a Comment