Politics - If The First Were Treated Like The Second

[AmBraCol]

Here's a little something I threw together this afternoon. I figured it'd be worth a grin or two and maybe draw some good input to help flesh it out a bit...

Have you ever imagined what the world would be like if the First Amendment to the US Constitution were treated like the Second Amendment has been? After all, EVERYONE’S in favor of “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the Second Amendment and EVERYONE’S in favor of “proper training” for those who choose to exercise their right. So, what if we demanded that the First (and all the rest) were treated equally?

You’d have to get a permit from your local government in order to post a blog. You’d be limited to the number of blogs you could have. You’d be limited in the number of words you could print on a given topic. You’d not be allowed to use any of that “saturday night special” language - nor any of that “sophisticated military style language”. The right to worship God as you see fit would be regulated and perhaps limited to “one religious service a month”. You’d have to have a license from the government to use religious language. You’d be at the mercy of the BPSRO (Bureau of Political Speech and Religious Organizations) and any regulations they’d dream up to further hamper your freedom. Anyone who wished to collect or sell Bibles and other religious or political books would have to jump through hoops to acquire the Federal, State and Local permits to do so - and would be subject to surprise visits to check that their paperwork was in order and all such dangerous items were properly stored and accounted for.

And the list could go on and on… how long would folks stand for it? I fear that the time may not be to far distant when such types of authoritarian infringements might become reality. Already many laws are in place which say that quoting the Bible is “hate speech” and one can actually be punished quite severely for doing so. “Radicals” who dare question the furtherance of the “homosexual agenda” to not only “normalize” but actually promote as desirable the sodomite lifestyle are already coming under fire -as are those who question the advisability of promoting obviously flawed “sex education” classes in public schools or who oppose the murdering of pre-born infants. The infringements have started - it’s probably only a matter of time before the First Amendment will be as heavily fettered as the Second.

http://paulmoreland.com/2008/06/23/if-t ... he-second/

[Old Ironsights]

People would and will stand for it because they will slowly frog-boil away our Second to the point where we can't do anything about the First.

[AJMD429]

I love the computer/gun photo.

Remember, to the general public the First Amendment is ONLY about whether or not you can show a nipple at a super-bowl game, and the Second Amendment is ONLY about whether or not you can have a levergun to hunt deer with. (I had to make sure the post wasn't "OT" )

Our fellow citizens actually think the Constitutional Framers sat down and debated all sorts of heady ideas about balance of power between citizen and government, then decided to write a Second Amendment just to be sure citizens were "allowed" to have firearms for "legitimate sporting use." Yep, they took time out to be sure to make a law so Bubba could get his deer, and so Leroy could collect antique engraved leverguns. And a First Amendment so you could have a strip club if you wanted.

Maybe they really wanted to protect politically significant speech, like a letter to the newspaper exposing the local mayor or a senator for some kind of misdeed, without fear of arrest. Maybe gun ownership so the police and military could never be used to subdue a disobedient citizenry.

Nah... They just wanted us to be able to have a levergun web site and talk about deer hunting.

I'm reminded of Isaiah and the "masses." - http://mises.org:80/story/2892 - All we can do is preach to the Remnants and pray for the future.

[Sixgun]

Paul,
I don't see no sense in worrying about any of it. Forget the future--worry about now or whats about to happen by the end of wintertime. I sense something big----------Sixgun

[1886]

If the libs. were intellectually honest and read the second amend. like they read the first amend., gun ownership would be manditory. 1886.

[AmBraCol]

If the libs. were intellectually honest and read the second amend. like they read the first amend., gun ownership would be manditory. 1886.

This is true. The question, however, is if they were intellectually honest and read the first like they read the second - what would the restrictions look like?

[Old Ironsights]

If the libs. were intellectually honest and read the second amend. like they read the first amend., gun ownership would be manditory. 1886.

This is true. The question, however, is if they were intellectually honest and read the first like they read the second - what would the restrictions look like?

Hmmm....

"Don't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre" = "don't shoot randomly into crowds".

Slander & Libel = Don't shoot people just because you don't like them. You've ngot yo have proof first.

Absurd, wild generalizations that cause public discomfort = Blasting your M2 MG into the hill out back of your house at 2 am... not illegal, but people get stressed... and the ACLU will defend your right to do it.

How about that?

[Grizz]

Paul,

I have thought about that a lot. I've often wondered what the newspapers would say when we told them that the ink they use is damaging a spotted lame tick, only three of which are known to exist.

I also think we should register print media as dangerous to human life, based on the cases of people getting so mad about what the paper wrote that they actually did choke somebody.

But more seriously, I have always thought that your question should be the basis for a class action suit. After all, it's demonstrable that the rights of the second are inferior to the rights of the firse, and that is certainly not equal protection under the law, even though you probably can't find a judge that would see it that way...

Grizz

[Ysabel Kid]

If the Second ever gets the restrictions the anti's want, it is only a matter of time before all the other ones get "reasonable restrictions" as well - you know, to "protect the children".