Obviously, Joe the Plumber’s statement quoted above (regarding the Santa Barbara shootings) is pretty offensive, in great part because he was pretty much saying it directly to the dad of one of said kids.
What I’d like to do is examine this statement in more of a vacuum. Are we more willing to be “flexible” in some Constitutional aspects more than others in terms of this principle, and why? Does it hinge on agreement on the aspect’s basic meaning (the Second is nothing if not controversial in this regard)? Would there be such strong reaction on both sides had this been said about, say, the First (yes, the Second is most easily linked to actual human tragedy, but I think we’re creative enough to come up with some scenario for most)?
Is that the dad who didn’t know his 20 year old mass murdering son was 22 years old? I assume he was distraught. Was it the same dad who blamed the government and Congress and others for not knowing who his mass murdering son was or for knowing that his mass murdering son was capable of murdering six and trying to murder many more?
It’s a tragedy that anyone died or was injured. However, the blame rest primarily on the head of the mass murderer.
I dunno about this. If a parent were saying we need sweeping new laws limiting what you can say on the Internet, because their kid killed themselves after being cyberbullied, I’d be saying largely the same thing.
Exactly what I was hoping to examine here. As I said in the OP, I’m pretty sure that the engagement with the victims’ families is further complicating things.
Not sure why people keep using this out-dated example every time there is a debate about rights and free speech. Technically speaking, creating panic while yelling something in a movie theatre or yelling “I have a bomb” in an airport can get you arrested.
I don’t think I agree with this analogy. Firstly, there are plenty of laws against bullying or cyber-bullying. And Secondly, no one would take a person seriously if they wanted sweeping internet restrictions because their kid were cyber-bullied.
Take cyber-bullying laws in California as an example. It is illegal to post things on the internet with the intention of causing someone harm.
I suspect you’re having a tough time following the articles you’ve read. I don’t think the father of the shooter said any of those things. I don’t think he’s actually said anything yet.
But it is not illegal to carry around guns and scare people. It is legal to carry guns into bars and restaurants. This makes many people extremely uncomfortable and fearful!
Simply carrying a gun into a restaurant or bar affects everyone in that establishment!
Though probably few if any patrons regularly worry about their personal safety as they order Bacon Ranch Quesadillas or double cheeseburgers and shakes, gun activists in both videos comment about the apparent danger of not allowing open carrying on the premises. One says he told his daughter, “It’s not safe to be here—we gotta go,” while another comments, “This Chili’s is no longer the safest Chili’s to eat at.”
Public policy shouldn’t be made by exploiting an emotional appeal of a particular crisis. Another example of this sort of behavior that left-leaning people may better understand is the hysteria after 9/11 that allowed the passage of the Patriot act.
This issue can easily be disentangled from guns specifically. Imagine someone snuck a bomb somewhere where cute kids died from it. And it turned out he was pulled over for a traffic stop along the way, with the bomb in the trunk, but the officer had no reason to search the vehicle. People would be clamoring to rape the fourth amendment even more than they are already are, by making an emotional appeal to the safety of children, exploiting a crisis to degrade constitutional rights.
The attitude there should also be “well, shit happens, that sucks, but stop trying to use this to infringe upon my rights”
The problem from my point of view is that someone abusing (for lack of a better word) the Second Amendment can kill dozens. Someone abusing the First Amendment can do little more than offend people. The Second Amendment is potentially more of a threat to citizens’ right to live than is the First Amendment