Fox news = false news

Rahvin writes:The FCC manages to legally restrict the freedom of speech for broadcasters all the time. You can;t use swear words or show nudity on broadcast television, for example, even though those are held by the Supreme Court to be valid forms of free expression and protected by the First Amendment.Surely if you can prevent nudity from being shown on broadcast TV, you can force news organizations to tell the truth.Except of course that Faux News did get sued over their lies. They claimed they are "entertainment" and so have the right to lie as a form of protected speech...and the courts agreed.My concern is why people (Coyote, for example) continue to support Fox even directly in the face of solid, incontrovertible evidence of blatant lies. Fox knows that what they report isn't true when they say things like "Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day!," and they choose to say it anyway. I can see defending the opinion guys for having shitty opinions - you're allowed to have a shitty opinion and express it however you want. But when they report a fact on which to base that opinion ("Obama's gonna institute Sharia law!" "Death Panels!" "$200 million a day!" Putting a "D" next to virtually every Republican who has a sex scandal ever...), they should be held accountable for that fact. The amount spent on Obama's trip is the same whether you're liberal or conservative or something else. You can be of the opinion that the cost is too much or appropriate or whatever, but opinions don;t change the actual amount. Why defend the lies, the known falsehoods, reporting facts that are well known to be completely untrue?

The idea that Fox news might not be wholly truthful is compared to "misconceptions" about assault rifles being dangerous.....?

Don't you think just by calling it an "assault rifle" you've ceded the argument that we're talking about a firearm designed to kill a bunch of people all at once?

I think the best arguments against "assault rifle" bans come in that, as a legal term, it's a bit of a cypher, and trying to ban it by description ropes in legitimate hunting weapons and excludes similar dangerous guns (machine pistols, etc.)

But just saying "I love my AK, you can't have it" isn't a reasonable position in a nation with a truly stupefying level of gun crime.

Why don't you think it was designed to kill a bunch of people all at once?

Limit it how you please; there will still be an enormous amount of it.

Dr Adequate writes:And most people who don't want terrorists to use biological weapons against the USA couldn't tell anthrax from baking soda. They would in fact be more alarmed by baking soda in a jar labeled ANTHRAX than by anthrax in a jar labeled BAKING SODA. But I don't see how this invalidates their position.

Analogy fail. Not all white powders are dangerous. All firearms are designed with the intent to be lethal.

Don't give me any bullshit about "it's designed to put holes in paper," we both know you can do that sort of target practice with a fucking air rifle that can't put a hole in a human skull.

Firearms are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing; some are designed for killing animals other than humans, but every single one can be used to commit murder. That's a pretty fucking big difference for the white powder analogy.

Which firearm is not designed to be able to produce lethal force?

It's so relevant it's the entire point. Banning all white powder when only a subset of white powder can be used as a weapon is not comparable to banning all guns because, while only a subset of guns are used as weapons, all of them can be used as lethal weapons.

Gun owners like to retort that "my guns aren't used to kill, they're used to shoot paper targets," but that's a bullshit argument because everyone with more than 3 neurons understands that if you really just want to put holes in paper you don't need an actual human-lethal firearm, all you need is a pellet gun or the like.

Guns are designed to be lethal. Handguns are designed specifically to be used on people (while owners of some rifles at least can argue that their firearms are intended to be lethal to other animals).

What, by forcing sufficient flour down someone's throat that they choke?

Stop being an idiot, CS.

You know the facts as well as I do. Any idiot with a loaded gun can point it at a person, squeeze a trigger, and commit murder.

Every firearm is in fact designed to do just that - kill.

The ones that are designed for hunting can be used to hunt human beings as easily as deer.

If a kid gets into the gun safe and finds any loaded firearm of any type limited only by the child's ability to lift and carry the weapon, the worst that happens is somebody gets fucking shot, an occurrence that happens frequently enough that you cannot even pretend to be ignorant of it.

It always amazes me that there is a certain group that as soon as there is any discussion about guns they trot out the gun ban canard.

Has anyone besides you said anything about banning guns? Seems quite dishonest to suddenly through this into the debate.

Here is a story about an air rifle that can kill you dead, I have a 22 cal beeman that will get it done also

There probably is a law preventing you from mailing people baking powder labeled as anthrax,

which would be a more accurate analogy to the situation you describe.

And I find in that situation little cause for concern.

So it means that I can't own "a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag". Good heavens, why would I want to?

Today they deprive me of the front grip on my .22, tomorrow they'll make me take the rudder off my car.

But I regard the prospect with stoical equanimity.

Frankly, I believe that criminal and Child Endangerment charges should be brought against any parent allowing a twelve year old or younger person to operate an ATV or JetSki.

Trees and ATVs are two entirely different subjects and magnitudes of risk.