Florida Shooting Survivor Says CNN Gave Him ‘Scripted’ Questions at Town Hall Event https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...ave-him-scripted-134229171.html?.tsrc=fauxdal
I wish I could give you ten likes for this post. This is one issue Trump is totally woke on. He calls them out and lays their bias bare. A dolt like Rubio lends credence to them by appearing.
As always, Rubio (and Kasich too) are positioning themselves for a primary run against Trump or Pence if Trump does not run again. So he has to play a goofy game of siding with trump to have some appeal to MAGA folks while also trying to be the not-Trump while also being pro-Trump. Not a game for the viewing audience to try at home. It requires him to take some risks and try to get some cross over votes from places like CNN. Doesn't always come out all tidy. But he knows that Trump and Pence have much of the Fox viewer votes locked down so he needs to get around a bit more than works out for him.
One of the weird things here and in the media is that if they want to change gun regulations/laws in this country THE ANSWER IS JUST ABOUT AS FRIGGING OBVIOUS AS CAN BE BUT IS ABSOLUTELY NEVER- AND I MEAN NEVER- TALKED ABOUT IN LEFTY VILLAGE. Can anyone guess what that elephant in the room might be?
Not necessarily. What Scalia wrote in Heller was a caution, viz. Heller must not be interpreted as ruling out any regulation or limitation on the types of firearms we are allowed to own and use. In Heller the Court ruled, in essence that the D.C. Regulations went too far because, in effect, by banning operative guns, they banned all firearms when kept in the home for self defense. In other words, an inoperative firearm was not a firearm for self defense purposes. The case on its surface had to do with handguns, but the DC law made it illegal to keep an operative firearm for self defense in the home, regardless of what type. Heller makes it clear that at least some types of operating firearms must be allowed and leaves it up to future Courts to go into exactly what types. But as gwbtrading logically pointed out, we have a long history of regulating or ruling out certain types. Canadian law would be a good fit with Heller, as it starts by categorizing in clear unambiguous language which types are unrestricted, which are restricted, and which are prohibited. That, as I interpret Heller, and I have thoroughly studied Heller, would be entirely compatible with Heller and the Second Amendment. Heller resulted in other challenges to local gun bans. One of those suits was McDonald v. Chicago which was brought on equal protection grounds. To no one's surprise, this suit resulted in a reaffirmation of the supremacy of Federal and Constitutional law over State and Local law.
This is the era of "fake news". But it often isn't that difficult to tell the real from the fake. Once it is made clear which is which, the issue has been long forgotten and we are on to the next bit of fake news and "alternative facts." The only sure protection is a good education and an inquiring mind. Most recently the massive attack of a foreign power on the integrity of our election and thus our democracy is being swept under the rug with "What about Hillary." Imagine the twin towers have just been brought down by Saudi Terrorists and CNN is showing non-stop smoking ruins, and then one flips to Fox, and its all about Flynn should change his plea, CNNs scripted questions, and What about Hillary. I guess the reason it works is because this time there is no real smoke and no falling bodies; just a bunch of indictments, whatever those are?, and a little, orange, lying fat man.
Anyone who does not realize that ALL the networks (not only CNN) used scripted questions and planted questioners for "town hall" events is out of touch with the reality of the media age we live in.
Sorry Mr. piezoe but I don't think so. First of all, possessing firearms in Canada is not a constitutional right (according to the Supreme Court of Canada), it's a privilege, and Canadian gun laws are structured accordingly. Licensing and registration is managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) so I'm citing information from their website. According to the RCMP: Practically all handguns are restricted or prohibited. Scalia wrote in Heller: "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed." According to the RCMP: So are ALL weapons "capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner" with a barrel length of less than 18.5 inches. Scalia wrote in Heller: "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." According to the RCMP under "Permitted purposes for a restricted firearm," only "in limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with one's lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life." That directly contradicts the purpose of the Second Amendment which is a "put" on tyranny and the right of self-defense. Scalia wrote in Heller: "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." CCW in Canada is only allowed under very limited circumstances. I could go on but we can't (lawfully) adopt Canada's gun laws without first repealing that pesky Second Amendment, which won't happen. So that idea is dead in the water unless we want to assume that's happened first, and then look at the mechanics of implementing Canadian style gun laws. Which is also a "bridge too far." http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/clas-eng.htm http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm