I've seen some remarks made recently in several threads, mostly quotes from anti-gunners, declaring that even the 1st Amendment isn't an absolute right, so therefore the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be either.
There's a problem with this statement. The 1st Amendment IS an absolute right, in that there are no regulations on who can use their tongues, or where they can use them, providing they have a Constitutional or legal right to gather at that location.
When antis use this argument to justify restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, the logic is greatly flawed. There is NO analogy. Gun control advocates seek to disarm law-abiding citizens, thereby not allowing them to own or operate certain firearms. Restrictions on free speech only occur after a statement has been issued, and harm has been found to result from such speech.
Therefore, the analogy would be, and rightfully so, Guns can be confiscated when they are misused, such as speech can be misused with penalty resulting.
But gun grabbers want prior restraint, not allowing people to use their firearms responsibly.
Part of the fallacy is based on the misconception that it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. It is not illegal. It is only illegal with casualty or damage resulting.
Even if such a declaration-- with no harm resulting--were illegal, the means that allowed you to make such a declaration was never banned or regulated. Movie ushers do not hand out gags when you enter the theater.
I believe the appropriate analogy was fully realized with the following quote: "Taking away my gun because I might shoot someone is like cutting out my tongue because I might yell Fire in a crowded movie theater." (attributed to Peter Venetoklis)
American citizens are given FULL freedom of speech, and are allowed to exercise their right as they so choose. But if they abuse the right by using it to say harmful or even merely offensive statements, they are held liable by the judicial system, the civil court, or, at the very least, the contempt of their peers.
These courses of action are not analagous to the whims of gun grabbers who wish to infringe our 2nd Amendment rights by disallowing us the choice of using our guns responsibly or otherwise. Of course, 99.99% of us choose to use them responsibly.
There's a problem with this statement. The 1st Amendment IS an absolute right, in that there are no regulations on who can use their tongues, or where they can use them, providing they have a Constitutional or legal right to gather at that location.
When antis use this argument to justify restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, the logic is greatly flawed. There is NO analogy. Gun control advocates seek to disarm law-abiding citizens, thereby not allowing them to own or operate certain firearms. Restrictions on free speech only occur after a statement has been issued, and harm has been found to result from such speech.
Therefore, the analogy would be, and rightfully so, Guns can be confiscated when they are misused, such as speech can be misused with penalty resulting.
But gun grabbers want prior restraint, not allowing people to use their firearms responsibly.
Part of the fallacy is based on the misconception that it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. It is not illegal. It is only illegal with casualty or damage resulting.
Even if such a declaration-- with no harm resulting--were illegal, the means that allowed you to make such a declaration was never banned or regulated. Movie ushers do not hand out gags when you enter the theater.
I believe the appropriate analogy was fully realized with the following quote: "Taking away my gun because I might shoot someone is like cutting out my tongue because I might yell Fire in a crowded movie theater." (attributed to Peter Venetoklis)
American citizens are given FULL freedom of speech, and are allowed to exercise their right as they so choose. But if they abuse the right by using it to say harmful or even merely offensive statements, they are held liable by the judicial system, the civil court, or, at the very least, the contempt of their peers.
These courses of action are not analagous to the whims of gun grabbers who wish to infringe our 2nd Amendment rights by disallowing us the choice of using our guns responsibly or otherwise. Of course, 99.99% of us choose to use them responsibly.