A friend at work brought this up at work today. The press is attacking the NRA for its unyielding position. Saying they lost an opportunity.
Yet we tolerate all sorts of 1st Amendment abuses. A-holes burning our flag, Nazis marching, all sorts of inflammatory speech. It’s the price we pay for freedom. I can talk about anything I want. It can be something fun like puppies and kittens in Christmas hats or political. I can criticize the leaders in my government. As long as I don’t libel anyone then my speech is protected.
Why isn’t the 2nd Amendment given the same respect? Why should the NRA cave in on gun reform? Why is this even an issue? If you read the news it sounds like there will be a political battle between anti gun voters and gun owners. Can you imagine the uproar if anyone said the same about limiting the 1st amendment?
I can understand repealing the 2nd amendment. Assuming the anti gun crowd ever got powerful enough.
I find the attacks on our Bill of Rights disturbing. The 4th amendment has been weakened significantly by the police and more recently by the TSA, Executions are obviously a problem for the 8th amendment. We have people tried by state courts and sometimes Federal in spite of the 5th amendment.
There are limits on First Amendment protections. You mentioned one in the OP. There are others.
If flag-burning killed people you’d probably see a lot more public support for banning it. Issues tend to take on more importance when lives are on the line.
The First Amendment isn’t absolute, but there are very few situations in which the government can prevent you from speaking. The standard involves your speech inciting imminent lawless action. There are plenty of other situations in which you can be held civilly liable for things you say. And I am not sure I accept your characterization of offensive speech as “abuses” of First Amendment protections. In fact I remember a bunch of people being ticked off when Obama or someone in the administration used a similar phrasing regarding that YouTube Innocence of Muslims video.
Maybe you’ll be less disturbed if you pick a less inflammatory way of looking at it. If you’re asking why I am more willing to tolerate regulation of guns than of speech, it’s because the effects of regulating speech are more far-reaching. And not to put too fine a point on it, but you can’t kill anyone with words.
Why are you thinking that all Amendments were created equal? Some really are absolute, e.g. freeing the slaves, and can never be tampered with. Others involve rights in which there is somewhat of a gray area, e.g. cruel and unusual punishment, that needs to be more clearly defined, including possible exceptions. The Second Amendment is another example of a “gray-area” issue that’s never been clearly defined to everyone’s satisfaction. And it probably never will.
In both cases, we have to define things that are not explicitly defined.
Speech. The Press. Arms.
Commercial Speech is not protected in the way Political speech is. Pornography is not protected in the same way that newspapers are. Nuclear weapons aren’t protected in the same way hunting rifles are.
In a bizarre way the ACLU and NRA are dysfunctional cousins. A million miles apart politically but both committed to protecting our rights under the Constitution.
Right, and it’s better to think of these laws (unless they’re really awful) as regulating the boundaries of what’s legal instead of calling them “attacks.” The Second Amendment mentions the right to keep and bear arms, but nobody thinks that means you can own a missile or a bomber, and if people think it means it doesn’t cover particular types of guns, you can see where they’re coming from. The First Amendment protects speech, but we still have laws against disturbing the peace, threatening people, or planning many types of crimes.
I’m fairly apathetic about Amendment #2. Neither gun fanatics not anti-gun fanatics disturb me much. I am disturbed by voters who choose their candidate based on this single, relatively unimportant, issue.
I’m far more pleased with Amendment #1, protecting rights that seem far far more important to me, but I can accept other people will think differently. Anyway, I’m hardly a First Amendment fanatic, and wonder if limits should be imposed, e.g. on hate speech or political campaigning.
But what really really baffle me are people who seem to think the Ten [Del]Commandments[/DEL] Amendments were written by the Finger of God atop Mt. Sinai, and should have exactly the same solemn significance and value. Do I need a cite that the Founding Fathers™ were mortal human beings?
What we need in this country is a massive quality assurance program for gun owners. There’s way too many shitty, irresponsible, mentally disturbed gun owners. The second amendment even provides for this by including the phrase “well regulated militia”. The second amendment does not protect your right to be a shitty gun owner, since such right doesn’t exist.
Limits on the 4th amendment is the one that bothers me the most. Just last week two woman were stopped for throwing a cigarette butt out the car window. The traffic stop resulted in them getting a body cavity searchon the side of the road. That was too extreme even for Texas and the female cop has been suspended. I won’t even waste my breath discussing the TSA searches.
I’ve always felt strongly that our rights under the Constitution must be protected. I get furious whenever a Christmas display is yanked out of a school. But I understand the importance of separating Church and state. I just hope that the 2nd Amendment is also respected and protected with the same ideological fervor.
Since action was taken indicating that this might not be permissible under the 4th, and there will be a court case to decide that, I don’t see that this constitutes a limit on the 4th. The amendments don’t protect you from some idiot violating them. They allow you to seek redress in the courts.
No, I fully support all the rights under the Constitution. I may bristle at some KKk speech but would never suggest eliminating it. Church and state is another one that can be painful at times. The ACLU has used it as a weapon for decades. But, I reluctantly support the concept of separation of Church and state.
Isn’t that the genius behind the Constitution? As a society there are many things done that we might not agree with. But, we accept it as part of our freedoms. You get the good and the bad. I accept the KKK guy because the same freedoms enables me to say whatever I want.
Of course there’s the famous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” exception. And hate speech is now limited. And so are political demonstrations.
The recent restriction on demonstrating “near” a political figure is just another limitation on the 2nd article of the 1st amendment. The so-called “free speech zones” restricting demonstrations for anything controversial.
Many (most??) espousing Islam have fallen under close scrutiny. Government support for Christian schools and Christian missionaries has pretty much ended the 1st article of the amendment. (Note the controversy in Louisiana when their legislature found out the Muslim schools also got aid)
We could go through the Bill of Rights one at a time, and I’d say, ironically, that the 2nd has proved to be the most bullet proof. In fact, since 2004 I would say it has been greatly enhanced.
More of an example than an exception. But that does show that even before the current standard (imminent lawless action), there were other tests like “clear and present danger.”
I hate the entire concept of free speech zones. In fact I think they’re a terrible idea and they essentially defeat the entire purpose of allowing protests. But that’s not the only restriction on speech.
A million miles apart politically but both committed to protecting our rights under the Constitution.