From gun control to socialism, it begins with the Fairness Doctrine

From gun control to socialism, it begins with the Fairness Doctrine

By Dave Duffy

Dave Duffy

Issue #115 • January/February, 2009

Well, let’s see! The country is slipping into a recession or worse, we have a new President who favors expanded gun control and socialism, and Congress seems set to enact the Fairness Doctrine, a law that will probably stamp out conservative and libertarian talk radio. That’s a helluva way to begin the New Year!

Could it get any worse for a person with my libertarian philosophy? Yes, I’m afraid it can. The new President has enough charisma to charm a snake, he seems to have overwhelming, even adoring, support from the majority of Americans, and his political party controls both houses of Congress by big margins. He can probably do whatever he likes, and I suspect he will.

His top priority, according to his official transition website,, is to revive the economy. That will prove impossible. Besides, he supports more socialist bailouts like the $750 billion one Bush did for Wall Street. Bailouts merely postpone the inevitable, while shifting much of the corporate failures to taxpayers. And they will make the ultimate economic correction more severe.

My top priority will be to resist more socialism, including Obama’s attempts at federal gun control. Every socialist country has its ultra-restrictive federal gun laws, and Obama’s website states his administration will support “making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent . . .” That’s just the beginning!

There had already been a run on guns and ammo in America leading up to his election. I went out and bought 5,000 rounds of .308 ammo for my SOCOM-16, and I suggest you do the same for your favorite gun. Ammo that costs fifty cents a round now will cost double or triple that later if Obama forces through some sort of tax or import fee on it, as I expect he will.

On my website prior to the election, I asked the question, “What will you do, personally, if Government agents come to your door and ask you to give them your guns?” I was overwhelmed by replies from people who feared the worst in the next few years. Many said they would hide their guns and not give them up, so in this issue, on page 71, I’ve included an article by someone who successfully hid his gun by burying it for 15 years.

Some people told me that the Supreme Court would continue to protect our gun rights, and that Obama wouldn’t dare buck the Supreme Court, which just last June, in the Heller case, ruled forcefully and unequivocally that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to own guns. But the executive branch hasn’t always abided by the Supreme Court’s rulings. In 1838 President Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling (and public opinion) that forbade the forced relocation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia to Oklahoma. In what has come to be known as the Trail of Tears, about 4,000 of 15,000 Cherokee died in forced relocations to government reservations. So don’t bet all your money on the Supreme Court.

But I don’t think expanded federal gun control is Obama’s top priority. That will likely wait until early in his second term. Otherwise he will be a one-term president because many who voted for him also own guns and will turn against him if he acts too hastily against them.

Instead, I believe he and the new Congress will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine early in his first term. The Fairness Doctrine is an old FCC regulation, discarded in 1987 under pressure from the courts and free-speech advocates. Democrats are trying to bring it back as a law that maintains that radio waves are owned by the public so equal air time should be given to all sides of every issue. In the free marketplace, conservative and libertarian talk radio has been a financial success, while non-conservative talk radio, such as Air America, has been a financial failure.

The Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to essentially give free air time to people who disagreed with the opinions of successful talk radio hosts. Otherwise the stations would be fined or lose their licenses. What radio stations will probably do in the face of the Fairness Doctrine is drop talk radio to avoid the legal controversy.

The Fairness Doctrine, of course, is anything but fair. It is intentional government misspeak, euphemistically ushering in an age of censorship.

Talk radio shows have evolved as the main critics of Big Government in America. Although they are a bit too “Republican” for my liking, conservative talk radio voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage criticized George Bush when he went on spending sprees or curtailed our individual rights as he fought the war on terror. Most were vehemently opposed to the $750 billion bailout plan and are just as opposed to any more socialist solutions to America’s economic woes.

Silence talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine and you will silence 90 percent of the opposition to any move towards socialism. The only opposition that will be left will be TV’s Fox News and small publications like Backwoods Home Magazine. So reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is a logical move for Obama. Then, after the most vocal pro-Second Amendment voices are silenced, he’ll move on to expanded federal gun control.

Once the Fairness Doctrine is in place, look for swift government action on an array of socialist ideas, including broad new taxes and the formation of what President Obama has called a National Security Force “that should be as powerful as our military.” Creation of such a domestic police force is a scary concept on its own. I believe it will be possible only after massive gun control.

But it all begins with the Fairness Doctrine.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *