Once "they" totally tear down the 2nd amendment - the 1st amendment will be next

[Crowman]

Free speech is truly possible so long as the right to it can be enforced. The First Amendment would not hold for long after the Second is gone. The precedents for that abound in recent history.
Your local news: Mintruth?

Self defense -- A basic human right
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Echo_Four]

It isn't just the first. All of our rights will crumble if the right to arm ourselves is taken away. The NRA is right when they call it America's First Freedom. Without the ability to resist tyranny we'll learn what it is like to live under a tyrant.

[rednichols]

The Second Amendment issue has been DECIDED in 'our' favour already, Feinstein can't undo that. I expect NRA will end up amicus curiae in suits filed on behalf of gun owners, on the basis that the court has ruled that reasonable controls can be imposed, such as licensing full auto weapons, but not de facto disarming such as gun locks; and military weapons were specifically encompassed in the Second Amendment.

I would NOT expect the Left to attack the First Amendment in any meaningful way, because it is their bread and butter: Hollywood feeds their political machine. Rather, it is time that the First Amendment's scope be tested by the Court, because it has allowed the spread of explicit pornography throughout the entire world, and explicit violence in films and games.

[Rookie53]

At least 1 liberal legislator in New Hampshire is calling for restrictions on the rights of conservatives.

" A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the "single biggest threat" her state faces today, and she wants to use her powers to legislate to "pass measures that will restrict" the freedoms of Granite State conservatives."


New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

[Brad426]

Nah, the 4th would be the next to go. You gotta build up to the 1st.

[Smitty901]

The goal is to void the Constitution by Appointing Justice that will do the job for them by passing congress. They been talking about this for 4 years now if you were listening.

[Clodbert]

I appreciate discourse on the topic of our Constitutional rights and freedoms but I think we may be going a little overboard here. To completely eradicate the Constitution and remove our most basic rights would be virtually impossible. While I put nothing past this administration, I think we're reveling in the "doom-and-gloom" a little too much and for some people it can be disheartening.

[Crowman]

I appreciate discourse on the topic of our Constitutional rights and freedoms but I think we may be going a little overboard here. To completely eradicate the Constitution and remove our most basic rights would be virtually impossible. While I put nothing past this administration, I think we're reveling in the "doom-and-gloom" a little too much and for some people it can be disheartening.

Never say never...... Complacency is dangerous as history has proven.......

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

[SpringerXD]

Never say never...... Complacency is dangerous as history has proven.......

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

To which I would add......

"First they came for the AR-15's, and I did not speak out--
because I didn't own an AR-15.

Then they came for the high-capacity handgun magazine, and I did not speak out--
because I didn't own any high-capacity magazines.

Then they came for all calibers above .38, and I did not speak out--
because I only owned a .380.

Then they came for my .380, and there was no one left to speak out."

I'm telling you folks right now, the "reasonable gun control" thing is a farce. It's easy to start with the "scary looking" rifles because the average soccer mom is terrified by them anyway. But if they ever truly manage to ban them and make them a felony to own, pistols are next because, hey, they can "accept" a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. After that, revolvers. They'll "discover" that speed loaders allow for a quick change of ammunition, and "why does anyone NEED to change ammo that fast unless they intend to kill people?!?!" And once they discover that a 12-gauge shotgun is far more devastating than an AR-15, we're in some real trouble.

And if they get their way, we'll ultimately become like Great Britain, where you can be prosecuted if you harm someone who kicks your door down and attacks you.

[SigPapa226]

BO talks about the 1% and the Millionaires and billionaires rather than the Bourgeoisie.

He talks about the unemployed and the middle class rather than the Proletariat.

He is talking about redistributing the wealth. His minions are trying to remove our means of self protection & destroy the 2A. They are also trying to pass a new bill to remove the 22 amendment so BO can be president for life.

But its all the same thing! Read the Communist Manifesto.

Its here at our doorsteps. This country is in more trouble than many of you think.

[cmdrdredd]

In my eyes, some of the first amendment is already being wiped away from our lives. How many times have you heard or read about someone getting the boot for speaking out on a subject that is not entirely PC? Or someone posting an op ed that ruffles some feathers and the paper has to redact or apologize for?

Things have gone way down hill and I'm sorry to say that my generation (I'm 31) has been a major contributor to this garbage. You can't please everyone, not everyone will like you, you won't like everyone or agree with everyone. So why the need to pretend that everyone lives in magical candy land?

The Second Amendment issue has been DECIDED in 'our' favour already, Feinstein can't undo that. I expect NRA will end up amicus curiae in suits filed on behalf of gun owners, on the basis that the court has ruled that reasonable controls can be imposed, such as licensing full auto weapons, but not de facto disarming such as gun locks; and military weapons were specifically encompassed in the Second Amendment.

I would NOT expect the Left to attack the First Amendment in any meaningful way, because it is their bread and butter: Hollywood feeds their political machine. Rather, it is time that the First Amendment's scope be tested by the Court, because it has allowed the spread of explicit pornography throughout the entire world, and explicit violence in films and games.

That might sound great but why limit what I can view? When it comes to video games and movies, both of which I am a huge fan of, I view it the same as firearms. If you don't want to own an AR then don't. No problem. Why limit me? Just as if you don't want to play the next action shooter game, don't. Why limit me? You might not like Mortal Kombat, Halo, Call of Duty, and other high profile games that are M rated for their violent content etc. They are easily avoided. It is up to the parents at home to determine what is appropriate for their children. Just as I support your right to teach your 12 year old how to hunt or how to handle a 1911, I support a person's right to allow their children to play whatever they wish to provided there is some supervision and moral lessons about reality vs fantasy.

The real problem is, nobody wants to put the responsibility where it belongs. Starting at home, you have to have solid values in the home first and foremost. You do what you can there and after your children grow up to reason for themselves, they are responsible for their own actions. It's not the gun's fault some guy went out and committed crimes. It's not Hollywood's fault for making movies like Rambo and Commando, it's not the video game industry's fault for providing entertainment like Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty. The person who commits the crime is to blame. You could go back and make the connection that he or she didn't have a good moral guide growing up but you are responsible for yourself. Blaming everything under the sun other than one's own disconnect from morality is wrong.

If you drive a car that can do 150mph, do you blame the car when you get a speeding ticket?

[Clodbert]

Excellent post from cmdrdredd. Blame the person, the conscious adult, who committed the crime. He or she made the choice and carried out the act. It's not video games or movies, it's not guns, it's not the pharmaceutical industry, it's the individual who commits the crime that deserves the blame.

I have no desire to buy a semi-automatic rifle but I don't want any restrictions imposed on someone who does want to buy a semi-automatic rifle. It is their right and it should not infringed.

[rednichols]

Excellent post from cmdrdredd. Blame the person, the conscious adult, who committed the crime. He or she made the choice and carried out the act. It's not video games or movies, it's not guns, it's not the pharmaceutical industry, it's the individual who commits the crime that deserves the blame.

I have no desire to buy a semi-automatic rifle but I don't want any restrictions imposed on someone who does want to buy a semi-automatic rifle. It is their right and it should not infringed.

Disagree. It takes three things to make a fire: fuel, oxygen, spark. My feeling, and NRA's, is that in the deaths of 20 school children, the shooter was a gamer, not a gunner; and in his case the three things that made his fantasy come true (fire) were mental illness, gaming, Mom's guns (not necessarily in order).

Battles, and wars, are won by engaging the enemy from an unexpected direction (feel free to disagree with me here, though, because I'm neither a soldier nor a war strategist), rather than directly. The First Amendment has culpability, and the Second does not (reasonable restrictions are already in place).

Taking another tack: here in Oz, motorcycle riders must start out on 250 cc bikes; they cannot go directly to a 200 hp Hayabusa (the bike I last rode); and that's for more than the first year of riding. That's a reasonable restriction, in my view. Yet in reality an underage person in America can buy and view violent games; and an underage person can see (though illegally) violent internet porn. America's gun culture can't effectively be exported (I'm a Yank, by the way) for example, to Australia; but its games and films and internet porn ARE. I question how responsible Hollywood has been, in exercising their First Amendment rights, to infect the world.

I WANT to agree about parental responsibility -- my teenagers in the 90s had to "turn off the blood" in their gaming -- but just because I happened to get it right there, doesn't mean I got it right as a Dad in every other way. So I can't see a way for America, or the world, to ensure parental responsibility.

I am not advocating ANY measure proposed by the Feinsteins as "reasonable restrictions"; what I AM saying is that reasonable restrictions are already in place, as set out in the Supreme Court's decisions (Haller and MacDonald; if you haven't read at least Haller, do so!) where sawed-off shotguns have been restricted for a very long time; perhaps longer than some posters on this forum have been living. What I AM saying is that the "reasonable restrictions" matter has already been decided, and should reasonably applied to every part of the Constitution, and that includes the rest of the Amendments, including the First.

And to add to the perspective of "blame the person, not the gun", of course we all agree with that. Bear in mind, though, that the law (and we built these laws, they weren't handed down from Mars) looks for "mens rea"; that is, "the guilty mind" in deciding what the rest of us call "intent"; so the law already knows it's the person who commits the crime (or not), not the object. And a mental state induced by drugs, or gaming, or abuse, or etc., etc., is an element of mens rea.

[cmdrdredd]

Disagree. It takes three things to make a fire: fuel, oxygen, spark. My feeling, and NRA's, is that in the deaths of 20 school children, the shooter was a gamer, not a gunner; and in his case the three things that made his fantasy come true (fire) were mental illness, gaming, Mom's guns (not necessarily in order).

Battles, and wars, are won by engaging the enemy from an unexpected direction (feel free to disagree with me here, though, because I'm neither a soldier nor a war strategist), rather than directly. The First Amendment has culpability, and the Second does not (reasonable restrictions are already in place).

Taking another tack: here in Oz, motorcycle riders must start out on 250 cc bikes; they cannot go directly to a 200 hp Hayabusa (the bike I last rode); and that's for more than the first year of riding. That's a reasonable restriction, in my view. Yet in reality an underage person in America can buy and view violent games; and an underage person can see (though illegally) violent internet porn. America's gun culture can't effectively be exported (I'm a Yank, by the way) for example, to Australia; but its games and films and internet porn ARE. I question how responsible Hollywood has been, in exercising their First Amendment rights, to infect the world.

I WANT to agree about parental responsibility -- my teenagers in the 90s had to "turn off the blood" in their gaming -- but just because I happened to get it right there, doesn't mean I got it right as a Dad in every other way. So I can't see a way for America, or the world, to ensure parental responsibility.

I am not advocating ANY measure proposed by the Feinsteins as "reasonable restrictions"; what I AM saying is that reasonable restrictions are already in place, as set out in the Supreme Court's decisions (Haller and MacDonald; if you haven't read at least Haller, do so!) where sawed-off shotguns have been restricted for a very long time; perhaps longer than some posters on this forum have been living. What I AM saying is that the "reasonable restrictions" matter has already been decided, and should reasonably applied to every part of the Constitution, and that includes the rest of the Amendments, including the First.

And to add to the perspective of "blame the person, not the gun", of course we all agree with that. Bear in mind, though, that the law (and we built these laws, they weren't handed down from Mars) looks for "mens rea"; that is, "the guilty mind" in deciding what the rest of us call "intent"; so the law already knows it's the person who commits the crime (or not), not the object. And a mental state induced by drugs, or gaming, or abuse, or etc., etc., is an element of mens rea.

There is zero evidence whatsoever that a normal person is turned bad by playing any video game. Tossing video games(or the movie industry) under the buss to get them off your firearms is doing nothing productive. Someone runs over a old man while driving drunk, do we blame the car manufacturer and in order to deflect that, ask for prohibition again? Of course not.

The only thing I see as even relevant is when a particular actor makes their career out of being a big war hero and firearms expert but then wants to remove guns from society and makes a couple commercials thinking it will help their public image. They don't care about the cause, only the name recognition to sell more tickets at the box office.

[rednichols]

There is zero evidence whatsoever that a normal person is turned bad by playing any video game. Tossing video games(or the movie industry) under the buss to get them off your firearms is doing nothing productive. Someone runs over a old man while driving drunk, do we blame the car manufacturer and in order to deflect that, ask for prohibition again? Of course not.

The only thing I see as even relevant is when a particular actor makes their career out of being a big war hero and firearms expert but then wants to remove guns from society and makes a couple commercials thinking it will help their public image. They don't care about the cause, only the name recognition to sell more tickets at the box office.

Great, the perfect opportunity to make my point (using your Prohibition exemplar) but I make it to the forum, not shooting back at you directly, for I respect your views --

Alcohol advertising long has been barred from American television (since the 70s as I recall), despite the First Amendment; and I'm thinking cigarettes, too? Haven't checked. In either case, cause and effect have been addressed. A motorcycle ad that shows someone just like you riding, or a film where the main character rides, or a celebrity endorsement of a particular motorcycle: these all are designed (and proven effective) to cause you to buy and ride just such a motorcycle. The power of advertising is the power of the First Amendment, and it has had reasonable restrictions placed on it. Even Toy Story's toys appeared in sync with the film's release (and, politically correct please note: Woody's holster is conspicuously empty as it swings); and many, many films and television shows have been conscious efforts at selling products, including soundtracks (Sleepless in Seattle); and though likely unintentional, certainly Galco has sold many a horizontal shoulder holster on the back of Miami Vice (holsters being my area of expertise).

There's nothing in my views that indicates I want the First Amendment under the wheels of my bike; only that I understand cause and effect. It was either Aristotle or Socrates who said, "intelligence is the ability to make connections"; let's do it.