Mediaboss Marketing

NBA

By Ryan Glasspiegel

May 15, 2023 | 2:50pm

Fox News host Will Cain does not believe Ja Morant should be suspended for his latest instance of appearing to flash a gun on IG Live.

Cain, who is hosting Fox News this week in the 8:00 pm slot previously hosted by Tucker Carlson, wondered aloud why the NBA would be infringing upon the Grizzlies stars second amendment rights.

Explain to me something. Does Ja Morant not have 2A rights? Cain asked.

Can he not do what he wants outside of his work environment if its still legal? It may be stupid, but I dont know what hes done to be suspended.

Morant is suspended indefinitely from team activities, and ESPNs Adrian Wojnarowski has reported on the possibility of Morant facing a lengthy suspension to start the 2023-24 NBA season.

Morant was previously suspended eight games for brandishing a firearm while on IG Live from a Denver-area strip club, immediately following several months in which there were a number of incidents where Morant and his circle were accused of threatening violence.

This isnt to endorse his lack of responsibility for handling his gun, Cain continued on Twitter. Or his image. But cmon, suspended?

Employment has become too big of a mechanism for behavior control. When Kaepernick did what he did the salient point was he did it ON THE JOB, at the workplace. Now employers control too much dumb but legal parts of life unrelated to work. Dumb statements? Wrong think?

And dont think employment is devoid of politics. Im not saying there is a bright line or an easily identifiable principle here. Its tough. As so many times, its a judgment call. But I dont like the instinct of your job controlling your legal but maybe dumb (in someones opinion) life.

Clay Travis, the founder of OutKick, which was acquired by Fox, responded to Cain.

Theres a really good, smart debate to have on employer restrictions of legal behavior outside of work but I think the challenge here for Ja is he has several alleged gun incidents in his recent past: alleged crew pulling gun on Pacers team buses, alleged gun to threaten a teenager in pick up game at his house, strip club insta gun video, Travis tweeted.

Not crazy to me for Grizz and NBA to be concerned about his behavior with guns. Then to follow it up with this within a couple of months of a big suspension where he claims he understands the team and league find his behavior unacceptable, its just really dumb and immature. Even his buddy in this video tried to protect him because he knew how dumb this was.

Cain was not swayed that Morant deserves a suspension.

Great response. And I think Ja should be judged and is and has behaved stupidly. Still not sure about suspension, he responded to Travis. But I also think employer image in controlling legal behavior outside of work has gone way too far.

Load more...

https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/fox-news-will-cain-pffers-2nd-amendment-defense-for-ja-morant/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Continue reading here:
Will Cain's second amendment defense for Ja Morant: 'Can he not do what he wants?' - New York Post

I dont know about you, but Im getting really bummed out by all of these mass shootings. One after another, day after day, more than one a day since the beginning of the year. Something has to change. This is America after all. The United States has a long history of dealing with challenging problems.

So, whats the solution? Simple, rebranding.

America has a long history of rebranding, of changing the terms we use when dealing with unpleasant issues.

When slaughtering Indigenous people and stealing their land started to sound bad, we rebranded. We called it Manifest Destiny and said it was about spreading freedom from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This made it sound noble.

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

When enslaving and dehumanizing the people stolen from Africa started to get bad press, slave owners knew they had to do something. So they rebranded. They began calling it The Peculiar Institution. Peculiar, sort of like your weird Uncle Phil, with his handlebar mustache and old MG, who affects a British accent. Although, as peculiar as old Phil was, he never whipped anyone to death or bred them like cattle.

After the South lost the Civil War, Southerners knew they needed to change the terms of the debate. They knew that if everyone thought they had simply been fighting to maintain slavery they would lose sympathy. They knew they had to do something to preserve any vestige of their traditions (you know, white supremacy). So they rebranded. They starting to refer to the war as The Lost Cause. This just sounds mundane, non-offensive. It made it sound not much different than the loss of a hard-fought, though honorable, soccer match. Simply a Lost Cause, never mind the fact that they were seeking to preserve the enslavement and systematic brutalization of millions of human beings, or the fact that Confederate soldiers routinely and summarily executed Black Union soldiers on the spot. Reality often is bad, and so sounds bad. Much better to hide behind banality, behind The Lost Cause.

When systemic and frequently violent racism in the 1950s started to get bad press, Southerners wisely rebranded it from white supremacy to States Rights. This sounds so much more noble, and hearkens back to the nations founding. Who could argue with a state simply seeking to preserve its own rights?

Perhaps the most recent example of rebranding involves Parental Rights. This is how conservatives now sell book bans and restrictions on medical care for transgender youth. After all, what kind of monster doesnt support the right of a parent to protect and safeguard their own child? Were not banning books, they say, were not discriminating against gay or transgender children, conservatives add, were simply protecting the rights of parents to safeguard their children. That just sounds so much better, doesnt it?

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

Now there are nearly daily news reports about mass shootings. And in nearly every news story there is also someone, a liberal politician or a grieving family member, demanding a solution. More often than not they call for restrictions on access to guns.

Mass Shooting has such a negative connotation, particularly when paired with Mass Casualties. The term is scary, and frankly it almost seems as if the biased liberal media has coined the term to embarrass gun rights advocates, and to make them look callous and uncaring. This must change.

Ive batted the idea around in my mind for a while now, trying to come up with something more palatable or benign. And I think Ive finally got it. Heres my proposal.

Lets changed Mass Shooting to Second Amendment Celebration. That shifts the tone from scary to laudatory, and when people hear about it (for example on Twitter at the hashtag Active Shooter) it will put a smile on their faces. They will know that somewhere a true patriot is expressing his God-given Constitutional right. This will also change the unwilling victim (victim is another downer of a word) from a casualty to a patriot, since they are nobly sacrificing their lives to preserve one of the primary rights in our revered Constitution.

This way, at each mass shooting sorry, old habits die hard at each Second Amendment Celebration, Americans can be reminded of what the Second Amendment means to all of us.

View post:
Opinion | Rebrand 'Mass Shootings' as 'Second Amendment ... - Common Dreams

As much as Id like to delve into a different topic, Bill Gouveias column on Monday was a telling essay that seems to reinforce the distinction between constitutional originalists and those who believe gun control regulation falls to individual, sovereign states.

His column (We need sensible gun regulations May 15) got my attention and commands a response.

I would imagine those who subscribe to the notion of strong individual state sovereignty will take exception to Gouveias comment that questions the mental health of those who believe more gun regulation delivered by the federal government is not warranted.

He suggests anyone not advocating for unified, presumably federal mandated laws is, in fact, part of the gun violence problem.

Ignorant political crap, silly pro-gun propaganda lies, chief among the nations mental health problems are those who do not believe guns need better regulation, if such people cant see what is going on, they are a big part of the problem ... hows that for a sample of from a we need more gun laws proponent? Not exactly the basis of a reasonable, civil dialogue.

Gouveia then goes on to contradict his first thoughts when early in his essay he notes that those who oppose more legislature at the federal level are in fact a large part of the problem. He then asks readers to spare the garbage approach when less-rules-supporters argue guns are not the problem.

Its not clear if he thinks guns are the problem or those who believe people are the issue behind gun violence. I guess it is both in his mind.

Gouveia then suggests that it ought to be made harder for criminals to get guns, all while suggesting virtually no one wants to ban guns yet suggesting the guns are not the problem view is garbage.

I suppose his diatribe against constitutionally supported laws and individual state sovereignty describes an approach that has been advocated by many who oppose interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right for all Americans, tempered by laws and regulation meant to straddle a rocky compromise of originalist constitutional interpretation.

My intuition hints that a large number of those who do not support private gun ownership and/or more restrictive regulations for ownership, are unaware of Massachusetts laws in that regard.

When people demand stronger laws for gun ownership the argument invariably moves to federal regulation and then, as Gouveia notes, the legislature cant seem to find the wisdom or courage to dig into new, more restrictive gun control.

What Gouveia fails to acknowledge, for example, are actions like proposals forwarded by the Obama-Clinton administrations at enrolling the country in an international gun control treaty. While such an accord with other nations had/has the proverbial snowballs chance of passing, just discussion of such a charter suggesting gun control imposed by other countries, raised hackles with irrational fears of gun confiscation that drove increased gun ownership.

Only ardent no-guns advocates would ever entertain the United States accepting another nations gun control rules.

Hyperbolic rhetoric and tagging those who view the Second Amendment through an originalist lens as being the problem and having mental health problems is not going to advance any sort of meaningful discussion for so-called increased gun control or banning of certain firearms.

There are many people who say things like I dont know why anyone would want a gun. Obviously they are entitled to that perspective. However, the Constitution, in originalist interpretation, says such ownership is a right, not to be infringed.

If you are not in agreement, your argument should be that the Constitution needs to be amended.

Bob Foley is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays are published here each Friday.

More here:
Bob Foley: Change the Constitution if you are unhappy with the ... - The Sun Chronicle

Gov. Tim Walz Friday signed into law a sweeping public safety and judiciary budget bill that creates two new restrictions on firearm possession and sales.

In a Capitol reception room packed with gun control advocates, lawmakers, survivors of gun violence and others, the second-term DFL governor credited the DFL trifecta for getting the bills across the finish line. And he said the measures will make Minnesota a safer place to live.

I understand our rights as Americans to do these things. But I refuse to allow extremists to define what responsible gun ownership looks like and to make this about the Second Amendment, Walz said. This is not about the Second Amendment. This is about the safety of our children in our communities.

The plan makes Minnesota the 20th state to enact what are known as red flag protections designed to remove firearms from those deemed a danger to themselves or others. It also expands criminal background checks to private transfers of firearms.

MPR News is Member supported public media. Show your support today, donate, and ensure access to local news and in-depth conversations for everyone.

The gun provisions of the bill had long faced a roadblock at the Capitol under divided government and gun control advocates on Monday said the vote broke down that roadblock and would prevent some gun-related homicides and suicides.

Under the proposals, more firearm sales will be subject to background checks and it will be easier for concerned family members and law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from people in crisis.

After every mass shooting, the airwaves are filled with thoughts and prayers. And with the follow up phrase, which is, It's too emotional, too hard right now, now's not the time to talk about legislative solutions, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-Saint Louis Park, said. Is there ever a right time, if not in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, that identifies for all of us the need for those legislative solutions? Well, here, right now, the time is now.

Gun rights advocates mounted strong opposition to the measures as they moved through the Capitol and they said the laws will not address the underlying issues that spur gun violence.

The impact of these laws will only be felt by peaceable gun owners, who are being imposed with unreasonable barriers to the free exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, said Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

Minnesota police chiefs, public health officials, mental health groups and survivors of gun violence urged the bills passage. And they said the state could keep rewriting its laws around firearms to reduce instances of gun violence.

Stopping gun violence takes courage. The courage to do what's right, former Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords said. Now is the time to come together, be responsible. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we must never stop. Fight, fight, fight, fight. Be bold. Be courageous. The nation counting on you.

The broader public safety law will also:

Boost funding for Minnesota courts to improve courtroom technology and raise salaries of judicial branch workers and legal aid programs.

Expand youth intervention and restorative programs with the aim of changing the direction of young people before they commit more serious crimes.

Rework the pardons process so decisions of the three-person panel the governor, attorney general and Supreme Court chief justice wont have to be unanimous. The governor will have to be part of any vote where a pardon is awarded.

Allow prison inmates to shave time off their incarceration by participating in rehabilitative, substance abuse or educational programs while behind bars. The credits couldnt cut their prison time to less than half but it could mean inmates serve less than the standard two-thirds of a sentence in custody before supervised release is permitted.

Include gender identity, gender expression or perception of those in the definition of bias-motivated assault when the crime is believed to be driven by those factors.

Limit the use of no-knock search warrants by police and changing the protocol for how they will be conducted should a judge issue one.

Ensure that families of people killed by police get access within five days to body camera footage, with the requirement that it be released to the general public within two weeks.

Fund police recruitment, given a shortage of licensed officers.

The law will also create the first in the nation Office of Missing and Murdered African American Women and Girls. It will be similar to the states Office of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Read more here:
Walz signs red flag orders, universal background checks for guns ... - MPR News

Payne agreed and struck down the law, noting that there was no evidence of a historical tradition of such a ban. He also rejected the federal governments counterargument that the people to which the Second Amendment refers did not apply to 18-to-20-year-olds in 1791 and thus could not apply to the plaintiffs today for gun restrictions. He noted in rebuttal that the people of that era bore only a partial resemblance to the American citizenry of today.

This is neither the time nor the place to thoroughly define and discuss each contour of the people at the time of the Founding, Payne explained in a footnote. But it appears that, at the minimum, all those of African descendent [sic] (many of whom were still enslaved), Native Americans, and likely many white married women would not be included. Though this is doubtlessly not the governments intent, this is the logical end of the governments argument, and it is a view to which the court simply cannot subscribe.

In U.S. v. James Gould, the West Virginia case, that analysis came out a little differently. A federal grand jury indicted the defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm in May 2022. As a result of his mental illness, he had been involuntarily committed on four different occasions and had also been the subject of multiple emergency protective orders over the years for domestic violencerelated allegations, which disqualified him for gun ownership under federal law. He then challenged the constitutionality of his arrest after the Bruen ruling came down, arguing that it now violated the Second Amendment.

View original post here:
Who Gets to Own a Gun in America? - The New Republic