What if the 1stA got the 2ndA treatment from MAIG?
For those who don’t yet understand how phony, Mayor Bloomberg’s “mayors against illegal guns” is, this blog by Sebastian over @ snowflakesinhell.com should clear it up for you. It should be called “mayors against guns”.
By the way, if you’re a Fargo resident, Mayor Walaker is a member of this anti-2ndA organization. Call or email him and ask him why. So far he has neglected to give anyone an answer.
Media to Gun Owners: Lighten Up
Posted by:Sebastian on Sep 28th, 2009 | Filed under: Gun Rights
Because heavens forbid we take the Bill of Rights seriously, and all. In this case they are complaining because pressure got Mayor Tautznik to leave the organization, on the premise that it’s not really a local issue, and not something he really wanted to focus on. He couldn’t be more right. How would Masslive feel if we were to redo this issue in a First Amendment context rather than a Second Amendment context?
Mayor Against Illegal Speech support the First Amendment rights of Americans, and is only against illegal speech, like libel,child pornography and and spam. To that end, they propose modest restrictions on the number of e-mails people may send in any given month, in order to combat spam. Background checks on allowing people to buy computers and digital camera equipment at public shows to ensure they don’t fall into the hands of peddlers in child porn. Naturally, we need a code of conduct for vendors who sell internet service, to ensure that they keep records on what their customers are downloading.
What we also need is for the government to keep a secret list of people suspected of being child abusers. Those people should not be able to buy internet service or computers. Too bad for the folks who happen to share a first name with someone who’s suspected to be a child abuser, or got himself on the list for hanging around public parks too much looking “creepy.”
MAIS also supports identifying information being placed in every packet of data transmitted on the internet, so that government agents can easily track information back to the source. MAIS is also very much against laws that make it easy to transport computer equipment across state lines, and sensibly rejects laws that override local laws on obscene materials.
Does the media still want to argue that we need to “lighten up?” Does it seem clearer now how an issue no one supports, in our case criminals getting guns, and in the First Amendment analogy, spammers and child pornographers, can be used to sell a sinister agenda for weakening an important constitutional right? If First Amendment advocates were combating our fictional MAIS group, would they need to be told to “lighten up?”

