Mediaboss Marketing

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

See original here:
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - The Star Democrat

A widespread belief is that the political system must be responsive to voters demands. But this is not obvious at all. Consider the following statement in the Wall Street Journals report on the adoption of a gun control bill by Congress (House Expected to Approve Landmark Gun Legislation, June 24, 2022):

The House was expected to pass the widest firearms legislation in decades Friday, hours after the bipartisan package won Senate approval, clearing the way for President Bidens signature and giving supporters hope that the countrys political system can respond to mounting gun violence.

Suppose the majority of the voters are in favor of slavery or that they are at least willing to accept it in return for something else as part of political bargaining. Or suppose that, in order to reduce murders by 39%, a majority of American voters wanted to jail all young males from their 17th birthday until they turn 25. Should the political system be responsive to this? Many people, including libertarians, classical liberals, and your humble blogger, would answer no. What other people mean when they say that the political system should be responsive is that it should be responsive to what they want.

Libertarians and classical liberals believe that the political system should not be responsive to majority demands on certain issues. A constitution, written or unwritten, should aim at protecting individual rights in an autoregulated social order, whatever a political majority happens to want. Some constitutional principles are beyond politics.

But what should be and should not be beyond politics? To try and answer this question, it is useful to be cognizant with James Buchanans constitutional political economy. In this perspective, what should be beyond politics are general rules that could presumably meet the consent of every and all individualsconstitutional rules that govern and constrain day-to-day politics. Under these constraints, politics is the way citizens bargain toward non-unanimous collective choices that are presumed necessary for efficient social cooperation. (On this approach, you may want to have a look at my Econlib review of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullocks classic The Calculus of Consent; and my review of Buchanans Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative in Regulation.)

The implications of this abstract theory are not always obvious. They require reflection and analysis. To take a current example, the Second Amendment of the American constitution guarantees residents of this country the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be abrogated nor abridged trough ordinary politics. The Supreme Court just reaffirmed the primacy of the Second argument over politics (although it still allowed political regulations that arguably contradict the principle). Imagine if the First Amendment was subject to constant political meddling. Citizens may unanimously want to change the constitution, but it is not crystal clear how we make sure that the amendment process is not corrupted by politics.

It is pretty clear that there could be no unanimity on abrogating or even weakening the Second Amendment, in which case the constitutional rule would stand and remain beyond politics. In practice, of course, if authoritarians and bigots become a stable majority and cannot peacefully persuade the rest of the citizenry, the constitution will likely be violated. Yet, the longer it holds and the more gridlock it creates, the more likely a temporary majority will be unable to abolish the liberties of a minority.

There is another answer the question of how to preserve the (conventional) rules that should be beyond politics but are undermined by politics. It is to escape politics altogether. Anthony de Jasay thus took a stand against politics, including in his book with this very title (Against Politics, Routledge, 1998). In this perspective, one believes or hopes that a system of individual liberty will work better without an overpowering state (see my discussion of Michael Huemers defense of anarchy in Regulation). If anarchy works, any individual would of course be free to keep and bear arms, or not, as he (or she) wishes.

One thing is pretty sure: a system where politics (defined as the making of collective choices without unanimous consent) is supreme cannot be trusted to preserve individual rights. The political system should not be responsive to every wish. And it cannot be responsible to every wish be as long as individuals hold different preferences and values.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment: Beyond Politics or Against Politics? - Econlib

John J. Mc Caugney| Gaylord

Im writing in praise of Dr. deLespinasses article, Protect schools, home-security, hunters: Amend the Second Amendment in the Gaylord Herald Times on June 17. His proposal is the most novel suggestion I have ever read in the continuing U.S. gun debate.

As Dr. de Lepinasse correctly notes, the Founding Fathers wanted: A well-regulated militia … not everyone owning whatever weapon they fancied and in any quantity they desire!

More: Paul deLespinasse: Protect schools, home-security, hunters: Amend the Second Amendment

The only comparison to the constitutional Second Amendment admonition for A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state… is the National Guard. I know that the National Guard is well trained in the use of their weapons. I wish I could believe that the same is true of the youngest Americans who at 18 are usually not well trained in hardly anything.

We can all agree with Dr. deLespinasse that Amending the Constitution is usually harder than merely enacting laws. Think of the still unpassed Equal Right Amendment (ERA), for example.

Still, wouldnt trying to amend the Second Amendment to ban assault weapons be worth the effort? We know that when we had a congressional ban on assault weapons 1994-2004, the number of mass shootings was greatly reduced. Dont our kids, teachers and seniors deserve better from us than to be sitting ducks waiting for the next slaughter?

Dr. John J. Mc Caugney, Ed.D.

Gaylord

See the rest here:
Letter: It's worth trying to amend Second Amendment to ban assault rifles - Petoskey News-Review

Guns up! Shoot back! As News2Share chronicles via a pair of Mississippi events, black pro-gun marchers exist in a no-coverage zone

By Matt Taibbi and Ford Fischer / Substack

If people arent going to do their job, then were here to do it for them, said Nick Bezzel, of the Elmer Geronimo Pratt Pistol & Rifle Gun Club, after being told for the second time today that officials in Brookhaven, Mississippi wouldnt meet with him and other armed black activists.

Bezzel was with a group of demonstrators, including Black Panthers, who were upset over a case involving a 24-year-old Federal Express driver named DMonterrio Gibson. On January 24th earlier this year, Gibson was shot at by a man named Brandon Case and his father, Gregory Case, while attempting to make deliveries.

The two Cases were eventually charged with assault, but bonded out quickly. Gibson and the accompanying group wanted elevated charges, for instance attempted murder or a hate crime. Ford FischersNews2Sharecameras captured the scenes of activists being told a planned meeting with a District Attorney was called off, and being thrown out of the area by the Brookhaven police chief just as they were leaving.

Two days later, a coalition of black pro-gun groups, including Black Panthers, the Black Riders Liberation Party, the aforementioned Elmer Geronimo Pratt Gun Club, Sisters of the Underground, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, the Black Power Militia, the Black Power Coalition, and others, gathered on Juneteenth in Natchez, Mississippi at the site of the Devils Punchbowl, where some historians say up to 20,000 black people died during and after the Civil War.

News2Sharecaptured those scenes as well, which included a collective signing of a Declaration of the Regulated United Black Militia. Some protesters brandished a placard with a Declaration of Self-Determination by Black Peoples and Organizations, while others replaced Hands up, dont shoot! with a new chant: Guns up! Shoot back! Other chants included:

Black people in America aint taking it no more, is that right? Thats right!

We believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb, and a life for a goddamn life!

These are different times Guns up, shoot back! I said, goddamnit, black power!

As Ford narrated:

Despite the obvious newsworthiness of these several militias from around the country gathering to sign a Declaration of the Regulated United Black Militia, no other media covered the event.

There are a lot of taboos on commercial television, which for instance doesnt like to show scenes of poverty (unless its being chased by police), rarely interviews non-voters, almost never does military contracting fraud stories, and seldom shows results on the ground of American military/drone strikes, even if theyve already appeared on the airwaves of other countries.

Perhaps the most dependable taboo in American media, however, involves black Second Amendment advocates. As Ford andNews2Sharehave documented over the years, there are many such groups, and they sometimes march in conjunction with groups like the Boogaloo Boys. In fact, the biggest taboo of all might be showing such groups demonstrating together:

Whatever your feelings about guns I personally am not a fan the psychology of the contrasting coverage of pro-gun demonstrations is fascinating. News audiences are clearly meant to associate white pro-gun protesters with a dangerous and probably organized national race-hatred movement, while black pro-gun protesters either dont exist or are a fringe movement not worth covering. Under no circumstance must such groups be shown together, even when they organize co-demonstrations. The first installment ofActivism, Uncensoredfrom last June, for instance, showed such a joint demonstration in Virginia Beach:

Its often hard to gauge whether certain movements are gaining or losing strength nationally, or are simply organizing more effectively thanks to the Internet. However, its clear the national press doesnt have a settled-upon strategy for covering armed black protesters. Most commonly they appear in reflection, shown as an exaggerated phantom of conservative news coverage, with theNew York Timesblasting Fox News for over-depicting fringe hate groups during the Obama years a classic example. These groups do exist, however, and their shows of strength in places like Natchez are clearly newsworthy. Whats behind the taboo?

Like Loading...

Continued here:
Activism, Uncensored: Are Black 2nd Amendment Advocates the Ultimate Taboo? - Scheerpost.com

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore voiced an extremist attack on the Second Amendment on Tuesday during an MSNBC segment.

The progressive activist went well beyond standard Democratic campaign rhetoric with regard to firearms.

Moore claimed: Its time to repeal the Second Amendment.

The Hollywood eliteblasted the Democratic Party for refusing to openly condemn the constitutional right.

Moore said he believes that the founding fathers of the United States would have written the Second Amendment differently if they were aware of future firearm technology.

Moore called for a moratorium, perhaps on gun sales.

Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment?

Yes: 1% (3 Votes)

No: 99% (348 Votes)

We are a violent people to begin with, Moore said.

This country was birthed in violence with the genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun. This country was built on the backs of slaves with a gun to their backs, to build this country.

Moores extremist vision of gun control is generally eschewed by the mainstream Democratic Party, at least in rhetoric.

Democratic messaging usually emphasizes gun safety.

Moore continued, I support all gun control legislation, not sensible gun control. We dont need the sensible stuff. We need the hardcore stuff.

The filmmaker has called for a repeal of the Second Amendment for years.

He has advocated a proposed 28th Amendment to replace the provision, enshrining the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence through draconian gun control measures.

In 2018 then-retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens also called for a full repeal of the Second Amendment restricting firearms to the government.

Gun violence with semiautomatic rifles is rare, compared to shootings with handguns, which are legal in every American state.

FBI crime statistics revealed that 7,105 Americans were killed with handguns in the year 2016, whereas 374 were killed with rifles.

Tags:

Continue reading here:
'It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment': Fanatic Leftist Demands ...