The Inconvenient First Amendment

First, read this repulsive editorial from the Chicago Tribune...yesterday, they were so proud of it they bannered it on their editorial page...today they buried it down in their blog instead of queueing it onto the list of previous editorials...apparently, one of the few adults who still work at the Tribune read it and realized there's nothing quite as embarrassing as adolescent prose from aging hippies:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
[...]
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.

Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.

We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.

Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it.

I call for another debate, and unlike the sad remnants of a once-great newspaper, I don't think we need to repeal the First Amendment, but I think we need to consider reasonable restrictions on only a portion of the media.

While newspapers once filled an important role in society, their day has clearly passed. Cable television and the Internet have surplanted their role as newsgathers on an international, national and local scale. Newspapers no longer serve the function for which they were chartered — news — and instead provide a devisive and often harmful counterpoint to the communities they allegedly serve.

How many people are injured each year by incoorect and often malicious reporting? How much damage to the political and cultural body is sustained because of junior reporters, willing to work for the kibble the declining news business pays, attempt to "make their bones?" How much suffering must we put up with before we have this discussion?

The regulations I propose are simple, unobtrusive and will not in any way hinder newspapers' pursuit of whatever their wouldlike to pursue in their declining years:

1) Registration of all reporters and photographers, including a comprehensive list of their equipment allegedly used in "newsgathering." At their option, residences and businesses can post signage banning reporters or photographers from their premises, on penalty of arrest.
2) Because they represent a more "dangerous and unusual" threat, we call for the licensing of editors, including extensive background checks and annual renewals. Editors will not be allowed in public or government buildings or at public gatherings.
4) All newspapers must submit to a minor bit of prior restraint, providing for a review by adults in the newspaper's community before publication. So what that you get Tuesday's news on Wednesday? Youv'e already surfed the Internet for the real news.
5) Editorial page writers become responsible for the ethical, legal and moral consequences of each word they write. If, for example, an editorial leads even indirectly to a person;s death, the writers of that editorial are subject to laws on murder; bad fanancial reporting can leads to charges of conspiracy and grand theft.

Simple and straightforward...how can any right-thinking individual object?