The 1st Amendment is an absolute right.

[Jim K]

Sometimes the right to free speech, the right to a free press, and the right to keep and bear arms are threatened at the same time.

When the current handgun ban (bans sale of guns not on the "approved" list) was enacted in MD, the state AG (Curran) determined that it was against the law to advertise guns that could not be sold in the state.

So he sent the State Police to raid newsstands and super markets and seize copies of gun magazines that had articles or advertising on "unapproved" guns. That didn't last long, but there were some raids and some magazines and other publications were seized. Most were later returned or the stores reimbursed for them, but it proves that people who do not respect one right often do not respect any of them.

Incidentally, some of the anti-gun newspapers saw nothing wrong with the police confiscating Guns and Ammo, equating gun magazines with pornography and "Nazi" literature. They are so blind and insane on the gun control issue that they don't even see the danger to themselves of an out-of-control anti-gun administration.

Jim

 

[Jeff]

Excellent point. So the real correlation between that cliche and the 2A would be that under the 2A you don't have a right to stand up in a theater and start randomly shooting people.

In other words, the 1A doesn't affirm the right to misuse free speech, just like the 2A doesn't affirm the right to misuse arms.

Ummm, Zundfolge, that was the point of my original post, and the point of some others who followed.

 

[TX1911fan]

longrifleman, I agree with your pet peeve. I think it is understood with the analogy that you can't yell fire unless there really is a fire. In other words, you can't use your "free speech" to create an unnecessarily dangerous situation. That is why Jeff's original point is so good. We are still all allowed to say fire in virtually every other circumstance, including in a movie theater when there really is a fire. We just can't misuse the word to someone else's detriment. Same should go for guns.

I've been thinking about this for a response to someone who holds that we should have responsible gun laws. Here is how I would expect the conversation to go:

Me: What responsible laws are you talking about?
Them: Like licensing and registration.
Me: that's because a gun is so dangerous that it should be licensed and its owner registered?
Them: exactly
Me: would you accept the same kind of reasonable restrictions on Free Speech?
Them: like what?
Me: well, the classic example of abuse of free speech is yelling "fire" in a movie theater, right?
Them: yes.
Me: and that's dangerous, right, that's why it is not protected speech?
Them: sure
Me: so what if we make everyone who wants to say the word fire have to register and get a license to use that word first. That way, they can get training on when it is appropriate to use it, how best to say it, etc. so they don't cause any problems. And we could punish someone for using that word who has not been registered. I mean, we require people to get a license and registration to drive a car, right. Why not a dangerous word like fire. And someone who is not licensed and registered would be punished if they used the word, whether it was innocent or not, even if it didn't harm anyone.
Them: uhhh
Me: now, keep in mind that if there really was a fire in the theater, you couldn't tell anyone because you aren't licensed or registered to use that word. Generally, only wealthier people would be, because we would make the fees so high, and make the course you have to attend so onerous, that only people with money and time would get it. But that's ok, because it is such a dangerous word that we can accept that someone might get hurt accidentally. I mean, think of the children who could be injured if someone used that word the wrong way! All those innocent little ones being trampled because some idiot shouts fire, whether there is one or not. I'd rather burn to death than use that word anyway, even the thought of it makes me gag. I can't even write it on a piece of paper it is so heinous.

I would expect this would be a good time to launch into the explanation that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, good, fine, upstanding citizens who have their rights trampled constantly because a small minority choose to misuse a contitutionally guaranteed right.

Sorry for the long post. Stream of conciousness kind of thing. You've unleashed a monster, Jeff.