Time for 1st Amendment restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy

po18guy

Well-known member
Clearly, the abuse of the 1st amendment is at the root of the culture rot that we are witnessing. From pulp novels, to newspapers, radio, TV, the web - you name it, abuse of the 1st amendment has popularized, glamorized and promoted the culture of death. Yet, when mass murder breaks out after decades of media-driven desensitization to bloodshed, it is “guns”, “the second amendment”, “the right wing” or the NRA that gets blamed.

Due to all of the above, as well as the epidemic of “fake news”, I propose that the 1st amendment receive strict state-of-emergency control. Those who would use it must have background checks performed, be licensed, taxed and regulated, and be subject to government oversight.

After all, lives are at stake.

Not good enough?

OK, it’s “for the children.”
 
Last edited:
That’s all we need. Fake news would absolutely reign supreme.
Thank God for the Constitution!
 
Apparently this needs an explainer. Since the OP was unwilling to do it, I will have a go at it.

The posting is a parody of the supposed argument for gun control in which the proponent supposedly argues to restrict the 2nd amendment for the same reasons as those cited in the posting.

Its real intent is to show that any challenge to gun rights is just as inappropriate as a challenge to free speech.

What the parody fails to recognize is that free speech is already restricted by things like libel and slander laws. So a more nuanced observation would be that gun rights can be restricted under the 2nd amendment just as free speech is restricted under the 1st amendment.
 
Last edited:
I get the point. But it’s not worth the time to argue against it.
 
So, no one is threatened by the assault on the second amendment, yet are concerned about suggestions regarding the 1st? OK, for those who do not get it, I am being somewhat facetious - but any attack on any part of the constitution is an attack on the entire document. Particularly in the case of blaming those one politically disagrees with for the epidemic of violence.

If using the red herring of the 2nd amendment to crush the rights of the law-abiding is OK, why is de-fanging the media (which has greatly profited from the violence and gore it promotes) not OK?

Blaming anyone or anything for violence, other than the human heart, is a red herring and millions are drinking the Kool Aid.

Why is our culture so filled with murderers? Where have they come from? What has molded, shaped them into tortured souls whose outlet is against fellow human beings?

The culture of death. It is promoted by hiding behind the 1st amendment. “Oh, that is sad, but the 1st amendment must stand inviolate”

OK, if the 1st amendment is sacrosanct, how many of the other amendments can we shred?
 
Last edited:
I’m sure you’re ready to rumble with the FF but you must obtain a time machine to do it.
 
po18guy said:
What I have written, I have written. A notorious guy said that originally.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he’s also the guy who asked, “what is truth?”… 🤔 😉

But, as to the merits of your proposal… you note that the problem is “desensitization to violence and bloodshed”, “fake news”, “culture rot”, and “promotion of the culture of death”. But, your solution isn’t to try to fix any of those, but rather, to take away Constitutionally-guaranteed rights?

Umm… that’s called a “band-aid”, and unless you attempt to heal the wound itself, a band-aid isn’t gonna help. 🤷‍♂️
 
As I’m fond of saying, I can solve the gun debate once and for all. All I’d need is a bottle of white-out and a time machine. The former is pretty easy to obtain. The latter, on the other hand . . . . .😁
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What the parody fails to recognize is that free speech is already restricted by things like libel and slander laws.
Click to expand...
That’s what I did not get. Nothing new was said that does not already exist. We used to have such restrictions. We do not know because of lack of public opinion and desire to have such restrictions.
 
po18guy said:
So, no one is threatened by the assault on the second amendment, yet are concerned about suggestions regarding the 1st?
Click to expand...
Excuse me? How did you come to that conclusion from such a lack of response to your rather analogy, which had a faulty premise from the beginning? There are only two of us here that I think are proponents of Second Amendment restrictions, and we both realize that the same exists for every other right enumerated in the Constitution. Every right will end where the rights of others begin. That is why there are always some restrictions.

You are acting like there is hypocrisy here when there is none, and that is a straw man.

Edit - …unless of course…

On further reflection, it may be your point is not to focus exclusively on one element, and one that deals with fixing outer cultural symptoms. So that may be something to consider. It surely shows there is a lack of understanding in the entertainment industry, if not here, where pundits bewail gun violence, yet keep the 24/7 coverage of violence before returning to their regularly scheduled filth.
 
Last edited:
Good morning. Couldnt we just talk about the Catholic faith ? Peace be with all
 
There are a lot of threads on all aspects of the Catholic faith. Social justice is one aspect, and gun violence is one specific aspect addressed by the USCCB as part of the Catholic faith. There are other threads that deal with apologetics, spirituality, liturgy, etc., so yes, one can just talk about those things.
 
Last edited:
I dont disagree with you. There are plenty of opportunities on other forums. I just see this getting out of hand which adds no value. You are welcomed to your opinion. Thank you for keeping your response classy. Peace be with you
 
Hey, it coulda’ been an honest question. He did recognize our Lord as a King.

Seriously, how can progressives be content with oppressing freedom for the sake of feelings? Clearly, murder is not deterred by law - only punished under it. So, do we cut all hands off?
 
as long as speech is politically correct; i guess OP is OK with it

move to Canada, shipmate…

here in US, offensive speech is EXACTLY what is protected by the 1st amendment…

hello, mods, awaiting my scalding/ban…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top