This is a strawman characterization, an argument I never made. Certainly the NRA has official spokespeople, most notably Dana Loesch.
But the person quoted in the OP, Colion Noir, has no official position of authority with the NRA, and does not speak for them.
There is no First Amendment implication in the federal government’s restricting the ability of the CDC to investigate anything. The federal government could, tomorrow, restrict the CDC to only researching the health risks of watching old Love Boat reruns without a single violation of the First Amendment.
I doubt they want them to stop reporting on school shootings because these reports every time lead to an uptick in gun sales. Money, baby, money.
As expected, you people are just proving my earlier post (#25).
You have absurdly low standards of proof, trying to claim that something has been proved impossible based on a handful of posts by less than half a dozen people, not all of which even support your point.
So how do you feel about “well regulated militia” vs. “shall not infringe”? Does the second mean the first is invalid?
I guess changing the subject is preferable to admitting you were totally catfished by the linked article?
People talking about the 2nd amendment tend to focus on the beginning or the end. Both seem to ignore the middle. “Being necessary to the security of a free state.” What is the “the state” that the amemdment is intended to secure? Why, the just established country, of course. Makes perfect sense when you remember that there was no standing army at the time. People were supposed to have guns so they could defend the country. The belief that the folks who didn’t trust the people to directly elect Senators, much less the President would want folks to have guns to overthrow the government is absurd.
Well, did they repudiate? Renounce, denounce, and condemn?
Repudiate what exactly?
Well, it’s their TV channel, so unless there’s the standard ‘these views do not necessarily reflect the official position of the NRA’, then we can assume that they do, right?
After all, no one is forcing the NRA to put offensive content on their channel, are they?
I for one believe that if the NRA doesn’t release multiple official press statements and a TV miniseries stating “we the NRA officially repudiate, renounce, denounce, and condemn badly executed rhetorical arguments”, then that is conclusive proof that all members of the NRA and all persons who have owned or seen a gun are all satan worshipers.
And why should they have to? Do Dems have to renounce, denounce, and condemn every fool who finds a microphone and says something that could conceivably be considered from the left?
Strictly speaking, you’re correct that prohibiting the CDC from studying important facts on the epidemiology of gun violence is not technically a violation of the First Amendment. You are clearly not limiting anyone’s speech in the meaning of the First Amendment if they don’t have any information to speak about. How very clever of you to notice. But what does that tell you, if you wanted to actually be honest for a moment, about the zeal of the NRA toward suppressing the kinds of information that have consistently exposed their lies and undercut their fanatical agenda? You’d have to be delusional not to believe that they would eagerly seize any opportunity to manage how the media reports on guns, as their spokesperson made perfectly clear.
The remarkable fact is that the NRA’s central position is that the causative factors of gun violence are everything except guns, despite the fact that every single one of the factors they blame is abundantly present in every developed country on earth, yet they all have far lower rates of gun violence by absolutely huge margins. It would be downright comical if it wasn’t so tragic. In the aftermath of the latest school shooting in Texas – events which are occurring like clockwork – they were blaming too many school doors (or maybe too few, the argument is so idiotic that it doesn’t matter), not enough God-worship in schools, and kids taking Ritalin, among other things. Meanwhile civilized countries trundle along stuck with having schools with doors but without God, kids take Ritalin, and no one is getting shot. The NRA are a disgrace and a danger to society. It’s at least a small blessing that they’re not very smart, but then neither are their millions of devoted followers.
Of course they would. If the press being limited were Fox or Limbaugh. Of course, if the crooked and failing Washington Post were to be sanctioned, well, they deserve it for being “fake news”.
Right, and everytime that there is a school shooting they are able to rile up their base by promising that the evil libruls are going to come and take their guns.
Well, no, of course not. But, when the dems give a specific platform to a person, then they can be considered to be endorsing that position unless they renounce it.
The video was on NRATV, not some random possibly Republican channel.
Heck, the main text of the Constitution (not the amendments) explicitly contemplates that the government use the militia to supress rebellions.
Funny that very often one of the very first things legislated after a successful revolution is that we’ll take down anyone trying to have another.
The NRA has it’s own TV network, produced by the NRA, for the NRA. If the Democrats had their own TV network, owned by, produced by and for the Democratic Party, then HELL YES, they would bear responsibility for and be seen as supporting everything that appeared on that channel unless they provided that disclaimer.
Since NRATV regularly makes trollish and provocative statements without any disclaimer, we can only assume that the content is officially sanctioned by them.
“The first step to a successful revolution is to destroy all competing revolutionaries”
New Radicals, Jehovah made this whole joint for you
Captain Stubing - the silent killer.