What if the Congress were debating the perceived biases of the press in the United States evidenced in the last elections, coverage of the Middle East, and a general disdain for firearms? Witnesses were called who advertised their position not as anti-First Amendment but rather just desire to make the press more responsible in meeting their proscribed purpose of factual, nonbiased, straightforward reporting of the stone cold truth without any unnecessary editorializing with an allowable exception for editorials. They only want to allow the public to have warning when the reports they were receiving were opinions slanting the news to fit a preconceived orientation of the presenter and requiring that all presentations of actual news that contained opinion without expressly identifying as such would have to provide another presenter from the opposing view. Exceptions would only be made for presentations and reporting that expressly indicated their bias or orientation so that the viewer would be forewarned and could make an intelligent determination if they wished to partake of news expressing such a view. They simply wanted the press to be responsible and honest with the public they were supposed to be serving and not deceiving.
I have a feeling that such a position would be ridiculed in the press in every possible format being derided as unnecessary and full of denials of the existence of any bias or slant in the news reporting, they simply were tailoring their language in the newscasts and reporting to fit their audience. Anybody claiming any biases or slant to the news was simply being overly critical and was likely the kind of people who would try and have an overt influence in political matters which the news reporting would make difficult. There would be screams that the people need their reporting to inform them what events and items meant and that the press had to remain untethered and unrestricted in order to fully inform the people and assist them to form ideas necessary for the good of the nation. People needed the service provided by the value added reporting if they were going to continue to keep an active interest in the events that affected their lives. If restrictions were placed on the press such that they could not supply fleshed out stories and were restricted to simple facts without any embellishment they would not be able to provide an interesting presentation and thus the people would not be properly informed. The mantra against any restraints on the press called for a full capacity press and was dead against a limited capacity press restrained to just boring numbers and dry facts that would rob the news of any flesh and personality.
Meanwhile, the people pushing for a facts and numbers reporting had the catchy slogans, “All the facts all the time,” and “The facts and just the facts.” Their answer when challenged that they desired to short the rights granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by pointing out they fully believe in the freedoms of the First Amendment and would not think of making the press illegal but claim they simply wish to make sane modifications and place some proper restraints. They simply want the straight facts without the extra content and such content is not necessary and superfluous and not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Certainly people would be just as well informed without opinions and slanted definitions as if the people do not understand some concept or words, they could always look such things up. People are not helpless and would be better off if the extra capacity news were pared back to simply facts.
All right, this would be ridiculous but so is restricting the size of clips for weapons or banning certain weapons because they look scary. Would it be much different if one of these maniacs had two fifteen round clips and instead had to use three ten round clips? Here is a question which the average gun control adherent would not be able to answer, which weapon has a faster muzzle speed, speed of bullet when leaving the barrel, a thirty caliber hunting rifle or the AK assault weapon of the same caliber? Since the average hunting rifle has a longer barrel, the hunting rifle has a higher muzzle velocity and thus a greater range and better accuracy which means it has lethal potential over a greater distance? Who would have thought that? The last question is what was the intents and reasoning by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment? Research this yourself as if you do not already know you would likely not believe my answer. The reason has something to do with the concept that where the government fears the people, then you have freedom, but where the people fear the government, you have tyranny. Think about that while you seek the reasoning behind the Second Amendment and after you realize their intent you might think that you should be allowed to own a heavy battle tank and park it legally in your driveway. You would never look at a traffic backup the same.
Beyond the Cusp