NRA decides the 1st Amendment is making them look bad, seeks limits

“Gosh, we want restrictions on how the media can report on shootings!”

So you want restrictions on the only amendment to come before the 2nd, but won’t accept any limits on the 2nd (despite the use of the words ‘well regulated militia’)?

Go Fuck Yourselves, NRA.

Preferably with a loaded weapon.

With the safety off and a round in the chamber.

Yes, just another bullshit deflection technique by the NRA. Take away the “fame” the reporting grants school shooters, and things will be better. On a news show (I don’t remember which) following the most recent shooting (Dopers of the future reading this a few years from now: guess which shooting that was!) a father of a victim of the last shooting (Future Dopers, same) mentioned that there were a LOT of factors that play in to school shootings, but that the NRA wants to discuss every factor except for the most important and obvious: guns.

Naw, a bayonet will do.

There were actually 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights as submitted, but two failed to pass* so there is nothing special about the First Amendment’s position, or the Second’s for that matter. Conservatives’ definition of “unconstitutional” lately seems to be “it’s getting in the way of what I want to do.”

*The first was a procedural thing on how to apportion the first House of Representatives and is no longer relevant. The second basically said that no member of Congress could accept a pay raise until they had faced an election so the people had a chance to vote the bastard out. Unlike later amendment proposals, it had no expiration date so it languished from 1789 until 1992 when it was passed as the 27th Amendment.

To be fair the later amendments supersede then earlier ones, note prohibition and repeal.

Maybe you guys should watch the whole video. It might reduce the whooshing noises.



Does it generally involve the NRA admitting that the pervasive availability of guns, and not the media, is a big part of why there are so many murders in the United States?

If so, then the OP would REALLY have to eat some crow!

It looks like the NRA-TV host (not the same as “the NRA”) was engaging in trolling.

*"He added: “Pass a law preventing the media from reporting killer’s name or showing his face.”

Noir clarified at the end of the video that his proposal was not something he believed in, but one that he was using provocatively to make a point about those who argue in favor of gun control.

“You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment,” he said. “However I vehemently disagree with the government infringing on the media’s First Amendment’s rights, the same way I don’t think the government should infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.”*

It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of people agreed with the premise that there should be a law banning publishing/reporting a shooter’s name or life story. The First Amendment has long been a dubious proposition for those who don’t understand its importance.


Later amendments only supersede previous ones, or portions of the Constitution proper, if they explicitly do so. That is because of the linear nature of time, and also the meaning of words.

Otherwise, just no. There is nothing more inherently valuable or meaningful about a later Amendment.

That’s trolling? If so, half the posters who regularly participate in GD threads here would be banned. “Let me offer you an an analogy involving an issue you favor rather than an issue you oppose to demonstrate the principle involved as I see it”.

Seems quite a few went off half-cocked.

(1) Not the NRA. A guy named Colion Noir, who has a YouTube channel called, “NRA News.” About himself, he says:

(2) As the video makes clear, he’s advocating Congress censor the media in a similar way to Jonathan Swift’s advocacy of solving hunger problems by eating Irish babies.

Now, knowing these two facts, Chimera, would you say your OP is a model of accuracy?

Anyone else actually read the article?

Is it all that much of a leap to believe that the video is saying what the NRA really wants but won’t say in public?


Trump is not the first person to point out the coverage of school shootings may affect and encourage future school shootings – see, e.g., Larkin’s "The Columbine Legacy: Rampage Shootings as Political Acts. The explanation for his direction likely rests there – or, at least, plausibly rests there, requiring more direct evidence before you can simply assert that this si what the NRA wants but won’t say.

The initial claim was that the NRA was saying, “Gosh, we want restrictions on how the media can report on shootings!” Now it becomes clear that the NRA didn’t say that, and rather than concede error, you try to double down on the falsity.

Says the King of the “One More Thing” Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Yeah, Bricks, we know that the NRA is completely innocent because nobody officially speaks for it-not the people that work for it, not the wackjobs on the NRA Board, not the chairman, and certainly not an official spokesperson for them.

The NRA is evolving into an openly militarist right wing organization that represents policies and interests well beyond the mere rights of gun owners. It’s well documented that they’ve been infiltrated and influenced by none other than Putin and his oligarchs.

It’s in no way surprising that they advocate this sort of legislation, and I suspect that we’re only seeing the beginning of an even wider assault on American democracy as we’ve known it. It seems that Republicans don’t want an FBI or CIA; they want a praetorian guard.

Didn’t read the thread?

For those who aren’t clairvoyant, yes.