Ads showing candidates shooting guns need to be banned.

[Yavin4]

Guns, supposedly, are for self protection, not for making political statements. The message that gets sent is that using guns to make a political point is perfectly okay, and it's not, at least not in a healthy Democracy.

-Edited the thread title which was misleading.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Cite the authority. NT

[Yavin4]

3. No present law, but there should be one.

It's not healthy for our republic.

[Hortensis]

31. Free speech.

We don't have an authoritarian government, we have a representative democracy and a liberal constitution. It's not even like there's a significant link between guns in political ads and gun violence to back up this desire to impose an opinion on everyone.

In a better world it'd still be the very same way, just these ads wouldn't appeal to enough to make them a good idea.

[LanternWaste]

14. You're unaware of the obvious difference between a sentiment and citing case law?

Bless your heart. What a burden that must be.

"Just wondering" part II.

[jberryhill]

2. Any other political speech you'd like to ban, or just that?

[Yavin4]

7. We have all kinds of laws regulating speech. What are you talking about?

Candidate can't "fuck" in their ads.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. You wouldn't happen to live in the United States, would you?

And you took civics in high school, right?

Just wondering.

[aidbo]

25. High schools haven't taught civics since before I went to high school in 90-94

[NickB79]

46. Civics was a required class for me in 9th grade, 1994

[kcr]

70. Yep. They're teaching it in my kids' public high school right now.

Look who's wrong on the internet after all.

[jberryhill]

17. Actually, no one has tried that yet

[aidbo]

24. Aaaaaccckkkkk-shualy

They can use the word fuck in their ads, and some do!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pat-davis-congress_us_5af5d9a4e4b0e57cd9f943d9

[jberryhill]

29. I wasn't sure if he meant doing it, or just saying it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Actually, we don't have many laws regulating speech.

Speech constituting pornography, indecency, defamation, incitement ("shouting fire in a crowded theatre" ) and terroristic threats are about the only kinds of speech that can be prohibited or limited. A campaign ad showing a candidate firing a gun would not fall into any such categories - especially since guns, like it or not, are also legal.

[john657]

56. Just a slight correction,

you can yell fire in a crowded theater if you believe there is a fire, it's illegal if done maliciously.

Other than that,you're spot on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Yes, yelling about real fires is OK. In fact, it's recommended.

[john657]

67. Highly recommended!!!!! N/T

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Kinda tough to do.

[Yavin4]

9. How so? All kinds of speech is regulated in ads, esp. campaign ads.

Candidates cannot curse in their ads.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. I'll bet you're in for a surprise. NT

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Who does the banning? Would it be state or local authorities? How do you justify banning...

a legal action from an ad?

What would be the backlash, including annoying and expensive lawsuits, from the gun nuts?

Yeah, yeah, yeah... We ban ads with people drinking or smoking, and the first person to advertise condoms actually in use would be interesting.

But, banning stuff tends to hinge on public tastes, morals, or something, so how do you ban showing a gun in an area where guns are popular?

[jberryhill]

18. Not only are you wrong, but you are also ill-informed - Behold the F Bomb Political Ad

...which indeed aired on television:


https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/congressional-f-bomb-ad-set-to-air-friday-at-noon/1172265985

Congressional F-bomb ad aired on TV

ALBUQUERQUE, NM (KRQE) - People see a lot of outrageous political ads, but it's not usually the language that's controversial.

Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis wants people to see his congressional campaign spot in which the Democrat uses profanity to get the viewers' attention.

"F*** the NRA," Davis says to start off his 15-second ad. "Their program policies have resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers. I'm Pat Davis and I approve this message because if Congress won't change our gun laws, we're changing Congress."
...
The following is KRQE General Manager Bill Anderson's explanation:

"We received a request for air time from a legitimate federal candidate for office, and according to federal election rules we are required to give him the same access as his opponents. This station, by law, is not permitted to censor or in any way edit this commercial. What we can control however, is the 15 seconds of air time preceding it, which we will use to warn the viewer of a possible offense, explain our own views, and cite the federal laws imposed on candidates and tv stations."

---

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[onenote]

27. Quite the opposite: Congress long ago banned censorship of political ads on TV/radio

47 USC 315(a): ..... "licensee shall have no power of censorship" over political ads by a candidate.

[X_Digger]

45. Who says candidates can't curse? What law is that?

[tirebiter]

5. If they don't work they won't be used

Otherwise your restricting the 1st Amendment.

[aikoaiko]

6. WTF?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

20. comments featuring WTF

should be banned!

My dog snores, ergo, you are suppressing my 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble press grievances for free.

Clear?

[doc03]

8. Our man in WV Joe Machin (D) is holding a rifle in his

latest ad.

[Yavin4]

10. And he should not be allowed to do so. n/t

Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2018, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Fixed typo

[doc03]

12. She? nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. I believe he self-identifies as "he."

Admittedly, my LGBTQI-etc. card expired some time ago.

[john657]

23. WTF?

She?
Do you even know who Joe Manchin is?

[jberryhill]

30. Maybe he knows him better than everyone else

[john657]

37. LOL.

Could be, stranger things have happened.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Why? If it's a legal gun, why should he not be able to hold it in an ad?

I wouldn't like such an ad and it wouldn't make me more likely to vote for a candidate who made it, but why should it be prohibited?

[brooklynite]

21. The ads you are complaining about involve target shooting...

...which is a perfectly acceptable use. And I say that as someone who's never fired a gun.

[Hoyt]

36. Everyone knows who gun campaign ads are designed to attract -- white wing racists.

[john657]

38. I believe the ad the OP is talking about is the one

where Joe Manchin is shooting a shotgun at the plan to repeal the ACA.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-manchinobamacare_us_5b9676e1e4b0cf7b0041f88f

]Sen. Joe Manchin Shoots GOP Obamacare Lawsuit In New Re-Election Ad
His opponent backs a lawsuit that could invalidate the law’s insurance protections for those with preexisting conditions.


WASHINGTON ―In a new campaign ad Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) literally shoots a document representing the Republican-led lawsuit that could end a key and very popular Affordable Care Act provision.

The 30-second spot starts with Manchin mentioning an ad that helped catapult him to the Senate in 2010, in which he took “dead aim” at a complicated cap-and-trade environmental bill that had passed in the House. Manchin, rated by analysts as among the most vulnerable senators on the ballot this year, in the new ad takes aim against the effort to invalidate Obamacare’s insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions medical conditions.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey, Manchin’s GOP challenger in November’s election, is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that would allow insurance companies to deny coverage to people with various pre-existing conditions.

“He is just dead wrong and that ain’t going to happen,” Manchin says in his ad.

[Hoyt]

39. Thanks. Then it's not really a gun ad.

[john657]

40. To the best of my knowledge,

no it isn't.

[john657]

22. Do the words 1st Amendment ring a bell?

You're talking censorship.
No thanks.
Just for the record, I'm no gun guy, haven't touched a firearm since my discharge from the Army.

[dlk]

26. Given the Continuing Increase in Mass Shootings-this is a Public Safety Issue

Irresponsible yahoos shooting guns in commercials is outrageous given the ever-increasing death toll.

[sarisataka]

28. Restriction is freedom

nt

[ADX]

32. You may not like the 2nd Amendment...

...but you must really hate the 1st.

[Codeine]

33. Damn. Killing two Amendments with one stone.

If nothing else I admire your efficiency.

But seriously, no. That’s a ridiculous notion that wouldn’t pass muster with any court.

[braddy]

34. Guns are for target practice, hunting, defense, and collecting, showing that one has an interest

in gun sports indicates a willingness to protect the Bill of Rights, it makes sense for politicians to indicate that support.

[Hoyt]

35. Hopefully the day will come where shooting a gun in a political ad is like waving a Swastika or

confederate flag. Of course, nowadays guns and racism attract a lot of white wing votes.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. It's a form of dick waving.

It's also a type of dogwhistle inciting supporters to violence, or at least conditioning them to find it acceptable.

That said, it's not technically illegal. I think our side should be much more aggressive in calling them out.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Guns need to be banned, not free speech.

I FUCKING HATE guns. But the ad was a matter of free speech.

[kcr]

71. Wouldn't banning guns effectively do the same thing?

Couldn't have guns in the ads, could you?

[john657]

72. Well, yeah,

except that guns will never be banned in this country.

[kcr]

73. Oh

Figured there was at least one of 'em in this thread.

[john657]

74. Just for the record,

I'm no gun guy, I haven't touched a firearm since my discharge from the Army, I'm just stating a fact, so, just to be clear, I'm not "one of 'em in this thread".

[tritsofme]

43. Always sad to see supposed liberals advocate for censorship and against the First Amendment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. Yes, it is.

[X_Digger]

44. Fuck the first amendment, eh? No. n/t

[Devil Child]

47. Respectfully, no.

[NickB79]

48. Fuck those guys, right?

[NickB79]

49. Or.....

[NickB79]

50. Or this.....

[NickB79]

51. Chuck Schumer gets in on the action

[NickB79]

52. The best president we've had in generations gets a shot (pardon the pun)

[rogue emissary]

53. I agree and understand where you're coming from.

Interesting so many people immediately equate the action of shooting a gun with free speech. No one has the right to show any action as you highlighted in another post. The FCC still acts as a regulatory body over political ads.

An NSFW example. Republicans would have loved to show a woman performing oral sex on a Bill Clinton look-alike in a '96 political ad.

[Yavin4]

58. Thanks for the support. n/t

[onenote]

62. The FCC does NOT act as a regulatory body over the content of political ads

Well, actually, I suppose they do -- they enforce the provision of the Communications Act (47 USC 315(a)) that prohibits stations (radio/tv) from censoring the content of a political ad.

Pretty sure that wasn't the point you were trying to make.

And if the repubs had made an ad showing a woman performing oral sex on a Bill Clinton look alike and the candidate on whose behalf that ad was made appeared in the ad, the station would have been immune from liability for airing it and, indeed, would be in violation of the law for not running it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. First Amendment says no.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. How about these political statements?

[Yavin4]

61. Were they in political ads or photos?

Or do you understand the difference?

[onenote]

63. as has been pointed out several times, political ads are accorded the broadest protection

under the First Amendment.

Consequently, for decades, the law has been clear that television and radio stations may not refuse to run a political ad featuring a candidate based on the content of the ad.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. Does it matter?

In all cases these Democratic presidential candidates were photographed with guns in order to persuade voters that they were not against gun ownership. Whether these images came from formally-produced campaign ads or from photo-ops (essentially the same thing, as far as purpose goes) is irrelevant. Your point is that you don't think political candidates should be allowed to display themselves holding or firing a gun. My point is that they appear in ads and/or photo-ops with guns for political reasons, and that they have the absolute right under the First Amendment to do so.

[Yavin4]

65. Yes. It matters. A photo op is not run repeatedly on TV like an ad.

" Your point is that you don't think political candidates should be allowed to display themselves holding or firing a gun." No. That's your interpretation of what I posted. Please read my post again and reply to what I said.

I said that political ads showing candidates shooting a gun should be banned because it implies that using guns to settle political disputes is acceptable. In a civilized democracy, that would be abhorrent.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. Regardless whether it's a regular ad or a photo-op, banning such a thing

would violate the First Amendment. Period. There's no credible legal argument to the contrary. Courts have repeatedly held that political ads have full First Amendment protection, even if they are offensive or actually false. https://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/ You are advocating banning a public statement based on its content - you believe it implicitly encourages violence - and content-based bans on speech are illegal violations of the First Amendment under all imaginable interpretations.

[kcr]

69. I understand. It's like there's no NRA, and the GOP is on equal footing or something.

I see people spout stupid, hateful boneheaded opinions that get way more support and way less vitriol than what you're getting. It's just so much performative posturing, IMO. The internet is for educating people on things like the 1st Amendment. They must have never heard about it before! Must explain, now!

Just because these slackjawed morons can campaign that way doesn't mean they should. That shouldn't even need to be said, but DU.

[ck4829]

75. Kick

[Turbineguy]

76. The statement should be interpreted as

"we'll keep shooting your children".