[ul]
[li]If anything there’s more support for limiting the First Amendment, especially by pro-Second Amendment people. Just look at all the people who insist the solution to gun crime is banning video games or “putting God back in the schools”.[/li][li]Some people feel the Second Amendment has been seriously misinterpreted.[/li][li]Some people feel the Second Amendment is a bad idea and should be eliminated.[/li][li]Some people feel that the First Amendment is necessary for a free society, and the Second Amendment isn’t.[/li][/ul]
The OP’s premise is wrong. The First Amendment is not absolute and never has been regarded as absolute. There are plenty of reasonable limits placed on First Amendment rights. Most gun control advocates just want to hold to the same standard and place reasonable limits on Second Amendment rights.
It’s also worth remembering that the Second Amendment is explicitly motivated by the need for “a well-regulated militia” which certainly at the very least implies the need for some sort of “regulation”.
Nonsense. The fact that Fred Phelps can say whatever they wish without censorhip means that the First Amendment is going strong even if imperfectly applied. Or was the First Amendment a dead letter until the Supreme Court ruled against mandated prayers in schools?
Laws censoring “obscene” or otherwise objectionable materials or public schools educating children in religion have existed throughout American history even when the 1st Amendment was in effect. While I don’t support it, the people who do support it are much like those who support the Second Amendment but only for a “militia” or now a National Guard,.
Right. 1st Amendment >>> 2nd Amendment. The first is far more significant.
If the 1st amendment were “absolute”, we’d all have to work tomorrow.
We restrict pornography because we’re afraid of the effect it might have on children, even though it’s perfectly safe in the hands (heh) of responsible adults like me. And some types of porn, though legal in many western democracies and harmless to the participants, is outlawed even for adults in the US. I don’t see much difference between that, and laws restricting the types of guns or clips people can own.
But my personal opinion is that we need a new amendment that repeals the current second amendment, and clarifies the right of weapon ownership and the power of the government to regulate it. IMO, the second amendment as written allows me to have a hydrogen bomb in my house.
There’s a difference in wording. The First Amendment forbids laws “abridging” freedom of speech, etc. The Second says the right to bear arms shall not be “infringed”.
A constitutional amendment allowing the prohibition of flag desecration came within one vote of going to the states in 2006, so I don’t think it’s at all clear that the country tolerates it.
Look, we can debate about what is a reasonable restriction on any amendment we desire, any right.But if the OP thinks the First Amendment has no exceptions, he has been shown to be laughably wrong. Whereas, it is trivially easy to find mainstream gun support advocates who think that even the smallest inconvenience to get a firearm is unconstitutional. The fact that this OP even exists shows the disconnect from reality in many gun rights supporters.
None of these things are abuses of free speech. Abuses of free speech are things that often can have legal consequences – defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, copyright infringement, incitement to riot, disclosure of national security secrets, industrial espionage, …
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that exercising your First Amendment rights does not risk the lives of the rest of the population. If I burn a flag, it affects you not a whit (well, except perhaps if you breathe in the smoke). If I insist that I have a “right” to own a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in 10 seconds, then I’m endangering everybody else.
Oh, it most certainly can. The First Amendment allows for the dissemination of hate speech, which can trigger widespread violence. And the legions of parents who aren’t vaccinating their kids because they’ve read on the Internet that vaccines cause autism are endangering the health of everyone, not just their own kids’.
The First Amendment has blood on it. But then, that’s true of every one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights except possibly the Third.
I don’t recall the principal party of 2nd Amendment defenders in arms when rights were trampled on in the name of fighting terrorism.
- for the purposes of a well regulated militia.
Cannot that be interpreted to mean that folks with a military style weapon must belong to the militia. (Which today would be the National Guard and the Reserves.)
Perhaps in order to be “well regulated” each person with an assault rifle needs to attend a meeting once a month and a two week summer encampment every year.
TIC - but I wonder if Scalia’s literalist thoughts would go in this direction.
Actually, if the first amendment were respected with the same fervor as gun right nuts have for guns, we never would have had Christmas displays in the schools to get yanked in the first place. In the real world, the first amendment is far more abused and ignored than the second. On top of that, what the NRA and its supporters think the second amendment means is clearly not what it was intended to mean, court decisions bought and paid for by gun lobbyists be damned.
The appropriate response would then be a new amendment, not to subvert one on the books. We’ve made updates before.
You mean you don’t remember the NRA objecting to attempts at restricting the ability of people on the no-fly list or foreign nationals from buying guns in the US?
To be fair to the NRA, they’ve always been consistent when it comes to the Second Amendment and more than willing to take on their political allies.
You can own a bomber. Here is a private organization that owns several. There are also plenty of individuals that own one. No license required.