Public “Threatened” by Free Speech.
So, do you think anyone would have any problem with this?
Since “unrestricted” individual speech clearly threatens public safety, the 1st Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of speech restrictions, according to the Bush Administration.
US Solicitor General Paul Clement suggested that speech rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said the federal government should be free to set limits they see fit.
“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted individual speech would entail, various categories of speech-related regulation are permitted by the 1st Amendment,” he wrote in a brief.
He noted especially the new federal ban on hate crimes and those many other “particularly dangerous types of speech,” and endorsed restrictions on speech by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users, and “mental defectives.”
Tim Salamon, of the anti-free speech group, the ACLU, told Ogre he salutes the administrator for its position.
Do you think statements like that would make news anywhere? Or do you think the formerly mainstream media would just ignore them as ravings of radicals? The speech and positions ARE REAL. The only different is that the government is claiming it’s the second amendment that doesn’t exist, not the first.
Once again, those who believe the Constitution means whatever they want it to are claiming that nine of the first ten amendments apply to individuals, but the second amendment doesn’t. And of course, when the government shows up and starts claiming that people are not allowed to own firearms, that’s when the second amendment is needed more than ever. Keep in mind:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The key part of that is “being necessary to the security of a free state.” The more the government can disarm people, the more they can exercise control over them — and the less freedom you shall have.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Praying in Public Illegal - Cleveland Considers Adopting Slavery - Republic of Montana? - Who is Chuck Baldwin? - Who Owns Water?
[...] Free Speech can be a threat and therefore must be restricted. Sort [...]
Walter Williams has quotes about the Second Amendment on his site. If anyone thinks that this is not meant to be an individual right then he should read the quotes of the people who wrote it. They clearly state it is an individual right.
Here
This is pretty clear:
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
Your quotes are an echo of another place, another time. That was when men were free and laws ruled men. Today, none are free, and men rule with their whims.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurance policy, to protect the other 9 original and the 15 subsequent additions (excluding prohibition and its repeal). The Founding Fathers had seen it too many times where the citizens (subjects) could not defend themselves and their own government was an aggressor and oppressor. The 2nd Amendment protects we the citizens from both foreign and domestic aggressors.
Which is exactly why today’s government is working so hard to ensure that people are NOT armed!
And this is why I will be a gun owner with a permit to carry before the summer gets here. This is scary stuff I’ve been looking into here, and I’m just getting warmed up!!!
http://hoosierarmymom.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/concentration-camps-in-us/
Well Ogre I usually agree with you completely but I would like to digress slightly re: 2nd Amendment. “…being necessary to a free state…” is not the key phrase the “…the right of the people..” is the heart of the matter. When the founders wrote this phrase, they always referred to an individual right. For example, is there anyone so obtuse as to maintain that the 1st, & 4th Amendments are “collective” rights when the founders wrote “the right of the people” to assemble (1st Amend.) and be secure in their homes (4th Amend.) was enshrined in the original document. The Bill of Rights is the core of American freedom and to allow government to chip away is dangerous to that freedom. Finally, to demonstrate the left’s hypocrisy I recall an incident involving one of the original “public psychologist” Dr. Joyce Brothers. Appearing on a late night talk show, she stated that anyone who owned a gun demonstrated a latent sexual inadequacy. Shortly thereafter, some enterprising reporter filed a Freedom of Information request with the city of NY to see who actually owned a permit to carry a gun in the city. Do I need to tell you that Dr. Brother’s husband was a permit holder (perhaps explaining her late night wanderings rather than being at home with her husband) as was the senior Sulzberger, editor of the NY Times and a staunch advocate of gun control. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out John McCain’s efforts to chip away at free speech rights with his McCain/Feingold campaign legislation efforts.
Very true. I was referring just to this particular situation — in other words, because of this specific case, the reason that individuals have that right IS to defend themselves from this very government. Unfortunately, very few people understand that idea, and I’m afraid even less would be interested in supporting it (using guns against any government).