Red Eye Radio Red Eye Radio
12:00am - 4:00am
Red Eye Radio

Contact Me

My Blog

Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Custom Search
October 22, 2014, 3:01 am
Greg Bishop Contact Greg Bishop



Morning-drive news anchor and reporter, Greg Bishop also hosts Bishop On Air, Weekdays from 10 to noon, CST.

My Pages:

What Should the Debate Be About?

It's difficult to listen to endless propaganda.  Shootings seem to be common place and the numbers and ages of victims from the recent Sandy Hook shooting are just heartbreaking.  I don't know anyone who doesn't feel that way ... except maybe those at the Pentagon that cover up the killings of innocent children overseas by US drones and bombs as collateral damage.  

Our perspective is askew in this country.  Most of us seem to only understand what is presented to them by the major networks--the Big Media.  There, they promote an elite-prescribed narrative where the talking heads wearing cocktail dresses and business suits, because news is the business.  

Statements from the Obama administration hint at future regulations.  Bipartisan efforts to move towards new gun restrictions are highlighted by the "elite press."  

The mainstream news is in the business of forming conclusions for you.  The gatekeepers want to mold your opinion for you.  They want the debate to be about new gun restrictions.  

Don't let them. 

There are some arguments and discussions about guns that are worth having, like the access of firearms to those with mental illness or those with a criminal history.  There are already measures on the books to keep those populations from obtaining guns.  Should those measures be tightened?  That's a conversation worth having. 

Another conversation is the treatment of people with mental illness.  Thankfully more and more people are talking about the correlation of mental illness being treated with psychotropic drugs and extreme violence that seems almost certain.  That was a big part of the conversation on Saturday Session.

Here is an argument that is not worth having--the meaning of the Second Amendment.  

Let's break the meaning of the second most important Amendment in the US constitution down bit-by-bit for those who think it is about hunting foul or shooting squirrels.  

"A well regulated militia" -- able bodied men over the age of 16 that can answer the call to arms. "Being necessary for the security of a free state" -- says nothing about hunting or sportsmanship and has everything to do with keeping society free from tyranny. "Keep and bear arms" -- means to not only have a gun (or guns) in the house but also to carry them on one's person.

The response to the argument that the Second Amendment was established as a check on Tyranny is met with "we don't live in a tyranny."

Though it can be argued that the federal government freely sharing individual's medical histories without consent is tyranny or the TSA violating state's rights and the 4th Amendment without just cause or the NDAA being signed by this president, allowing for indefinite detention, or warrant-less wiretapping, no-fly lists, fusion centers, torture, etc. is indeed tyrannical, we won't go there.

Read a previous blog post about gun control, a blog written after a recent appeals court ruling on Illinois' gun laws, but before Friday's tragic school shooting.

The simple response to those crying foul to the Second Amendment being a check against tyranny is this: We shouldn't wait for tyranny to get a firearm at the ready.   The existence of a tyranny means it's too late.  The founders knew that.  The conversation should be, what level of tyranny are we willing to accept?

And the debate rages on ...  

News Video

On Air Video

Facebook Fans

LinkedUpRadio Envisionwise Web Services