[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 1st Amendment vs. Second Amendment (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/25/2008 4:11:27 PM EDT
|
If the First Amendment was treated like the Second: Any speech using 10 or more foreign words would be a felony. (Firearm law 922(r) restricting 10 or more foreign gun parts from the 1989 import ban) Anyone convicted of a felony or convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or assault is not allowed freedom of speech or religion and must rely on the government to provides speech and religion for them. (1968 Gun Control Act) Any speech or religions that are done in a scary tone or feel are banned. Any assembly that looks scary is banned. (1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban that went after mostly cosmetic features) Before engaging in new free speech you must pass an instant background check by a government authorized free speech dealer. Sorry if your name is like someone else prohibited from free speech and religion. It is up to you to prove that you are not that person. (NICS instant background check and Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993) Any speech or work with more than 10 sentences per page is forbidden, any peaceable assembly with more than 10 people is also banned. (High-Capacity Magazine bans in the Assault Weapon Band and in many states at the current time) 'Freedom of Speech' was only meant to be applicable to moveable type presses. The founding fathers didn't foresee television, radio, photographs, telephones, film or the internet. (The idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets) You cannot exercise free speech or religion on federal property or at a school. (Section 930, Title 18, United States Code and the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990) Any religions, peaceable assemblies, camera, computer, telephone, or free speech enabling device made before 1986 is available for use by the general public. Any made after 1986 is only available for law enforcement. (Closing the NFA machine gun registry in by Reagan with the Firearm Owner's Protection Act) A legal Polaroid camera from 1972 is now worth over $10,000 because you can't get any new ones after 1986. Sure you can get an illegal one but you risk a 10-20 year felony conviction if caught. (Market effects of the 1986 registry closure) You can follow any religion, read any book, talk about whatever you like AFTER you pay a 200 dollar tax to the government and pass a background check. If you decide to buy more books, try another religion or talk about something else you must pay another 200 dollars and go through another lengthy background check. (National Firearms Act of 1934) You CAN NOT have free speech no matter what in Washington DC. It has been this way since 1976. (Washington DC handgun ban) Concealing free speech or religion is only permissible is some states and only after you have spent 100 dollars and attended a state mandated course on how to speak/worship properly. Though in some states you can't conceal or display your speech or religion at all outside of your home. (Concealed Carry Legislation and open carry laws) You cannot have free speech if you are under 18 and you can't worship anything until you are 21. (Age restrictions on buying long guns and handguns) If you wish to exchange free speech with a citizen in another state you must involve a government sanctioned free speech dealer to ensure that they are allowed that type of speech in their state. (1968 Gun Control Act which mandates an FFL be needed for interstate gun purchases and transfers) |
really? write a newspaper article falsely claiming GITMO guards dessecrated the (k)(q)uran and read the papers two days later for the body count of the worldwide riots. the actual words maynot have killed anyone, but they directly led to death by unintelligent panicy simpleminded humans. that aside, it's a right affirmed by the Constitution. what the effect of the excercise of it has no bearing upon it's importance or validity. |
remember Tom Moshita? he was the MicroMachines spokesman on thier commercials. he would have been thrown in prison for possesing speech that is still under top secret research by the government. If it doesn't say MicroMachines, it's not the real thing |
|
I hope the 2A gets on the same footing as 1A in the Heller case---"fundamental right." Anyone remember the SCOTUS case about some guy with the words, "Fuck the War" or something on the back of his jacket, and that being protected under 1A? If only the 2A were protected to that extent. FYI--watch the "Legal Section" threads, should be some informative dialogue coming up. |
|
Now where is the Brady Campaign to prevent verbal violence declaring that only govt officials can be trusted with speech? Only state governments can maintain free speech and that it is a collective right, not a individual right? Maybe we can allow them to have modern devices…just keep them dissembled at all times in a safe! |
|
You aren't free to yeall "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You aren't free to use speech to slander. You aren't free to use speech to libel. You aren't free to use speech to incite rebellion. You aren't free to use speech as part of a hate crime. etc. You can't directly compare the two "rights." They've both been restricted by law. Here IS the difference: The freedom of speech has been put up in front of SCOTUS many, many more times than the right to keep and bear arms. Restrictions on the freedom of speech have been upheld by SCOTUS more than restrictions on the right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment has been pecked away at by local and state laws (for the most part). The freedom of speech has been defined by Federal legal decisions. |
Wrong. You are free to say and do all of these things. You are however responsible for your actions. There is a difference between owning a gun and pointing it/shooting at someone. Telling someone that they can't have a gun because they might shoot people with it is the equivalent of cutting out someones tongue because they might commit any of the other crimes you listed. |
1.the word "FIRE" hasn't been removed form the vocabulary. nor is it banned for use in other contexts, or even " hey, if there's a fire in this theater, calmly move to the nearest exit" 2.happens all the time. politicians anyone? 3.see above. 4.the words that make up the incitement to rebel are not banned. what is a hate crime? aren't they all "hate"crimes? i won't go into why all the garbage people call "erotica" or "pron  " is acceptable by the courts and congress, but 3 round burst newer than 20 years old is evil.the argument about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is tired and inaccurate. |
And you are "free" to own a gun.... just you may be called to task when you use it, or where you have it. I maintain that I am not wrong - the two freedoms are NOT as easily equatable as the original poster suggests. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has ruled on MANY more restrictions on free speech than it has on the right to bear arms... that statement is stone cold fact! |
Said better than I could say it myself. Why do people STILL get mixed up over this? There is no such thing as a "Right" limited by law. If it can be limited by a government, then it isn't a right. |
Your examples of first amendment restrictions are examples that actually harm people, or has the potential to actually harm people. Our problem with the second amendment restrictions is that they are restricting something that does not harm anyone at all. |
Then freedom of speech isn't a right either - it has already been limited by law, in fact, by SCOTUS many more times than the 2nd amendment has. Look it up. |
What if the theater is actually on fire? So, just HOW did the founding fathers go about inciting a rebellion? The corollary to that is you better win the rebellion... The term "Hate Crime" is every bit as intellectually dishonest as "Saturday Night Special" or "Gun Show Loophole". |
GSPatton - I agree wholeheartedly!!!! My ONLY point was that comparing the two amendments and implying that there has been no legal restriction on the 1st is a fallacy. |
Dude - you REALLY REALLY need to read up on restrictions on the 1st amendment and the decisions of SCOTUS regarding... |
Spoken like a typical pot-smoking liberal! As has been oft repeated, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Again, it's not the gun, it's the guy/gal behind the gun. Why do libs always want to blame an inanimate object? Drives me crazy! |
SCOTUS, of course, never being wrong 
|
Of course not  But it's seldom been as wrong as the original post in this thread
|
Just because SCOTUS chooses to ignore it, does not mean that it is not a right. The courts have ignored the second for going on 70 years now, does that mean it isn't a right? The word of the courts should not be treated as if it were without flaws. |
Top Secret - I'm sorry but you've missed my point. The OP made it out to sound like 1) the 1st and second amendments were directly equatable, and 2) the 1st had never been restricted like gun rights are My point about SCOTUS entertaining more 1st amendment cases than 2nd (by a very long shot) was merely to demonstrate that the 1st amendment has been restricted... a LOT. |
I have looked it up. And you couldn't be more wrong. The SCOTUS did not rule that freedom of speech could be limited by law. In essence, they ruled that speech which infringed on the rights of others did not QUALIFY as free speech and therefore could be regulated by law. You've never had the right to make speech that harms. Speech that harms infringes on the rights of others. Banning that speech does not regulate your right to free speech. |
