Kind of Neat!!!

Realized today that I have one blog post which has exceeded 25,000. While I know there are bigger blogs that probably get that many hits in a day. But for my little blog it’s pretty darn impressive. (In comparison, my home page has had 40,000 hits).

Here it is, my review of the Ruger MKIII Hunter and Browning Buckmark
https://nugun.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/the-browning-buckmark-versus-the-ruger-mkiii/

Just kind of fun to realize I’ve got a post that’s reached that many hits. 🙂
[NOTE: I notice one image is not loading. I will have to figure out what happened to it.]

Advertisements
Published in: on January 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Damn the Constitution full speed ahead….

Seriously, is there anything left of our Constitution?

We in the gun community often joke about how if we interpreted the Constitution the way anti-gunners do, then the Freedom of Speech would be exclusive to those with Press badges.

Well apparently, that’s what one Judge in Oregon believes. The case involves a female blogger who posted critical comments regarding a company. Stating that the claims were factual and from an inside source. And as such, she should be protected from being forced to hand over her “source of information”.

The judge deemed her unprotected by the Oregon statute because she is not a member of the card carrying press.

“. . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law”

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php

Seriously, regardless of how you feel about such slander vs secret source sort of things. This goes on ALL the time in the media. How often do you hear about a rumor and no given source…probably every day.

The real question is whether a blogger is part of the “press”. Considering that Ben Franklin ran his “press” as a pamphlateer. And numerous others during the revolutionary period were loan pamphlateers, I believe that without a doubt that the intention of our Constitution was to protect the freedom of speech & expression. Not to protect a limited elite professional press corps who often are motivated by politics and money to cover and print select topics.

No that was NOT what our Constitution was founded for. Now before you go on and point out that this was an Oregon law, and not a Constitutional protection. I will concede that point. But with a caveat. Clearly this law is modeled off Oregon’s interpretation of the spirit of our Constitution’s first amendment. Second, the decision was based on the Oregon law and decided against on the claim that, as a blogger, she was not a member of any of the following:

“newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

However, what is a blog? Is it anything but a digital pamphlet or wire service?

Can her blog we found in any aggragate feed on the topic? Thus syndicated?

This is either a failure on the part of the justice to be educated enough with modern technology, or is a direct attempt to diminish Constitutional rights as we move into new mediums. Both of these make this a very very flawed decision.

In light of recent decisions which have gone against the right of privacy, right to be free from unwarranted searches, bypassing of citizens rights to a trial, and more. One must be left considering, is our Constitution still a relevant text anymore? or just a piece of archeological paper?

Published in: on December 7, 2011 at 6:26 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , ,