Time for 1st Amendment restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was being facetious. I don’t think the analogy works, but I don’t think he’s genuinely against the 1A.
 
well, I had to read OP’s post three times to even attempt to understand it

maybe english is not his first language
 
Last edited:
“LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? Misuse of free speech is punished - just as misuse of weapons is punished. Since we now have “hate speech” the first amendment is more dangerous than ever. If lives are ruined by “hate speech” isn’t it time to ensure that “this never happens again”?

That’s all we hear about acts of physical violence.

The hoplophobes are seeking, without excuses, to disarm all non-governmental persons. Have they no concept of human nature or history?

Blanket restriction on those who do not violate the law - based on their potential to violate. Hmmmm…isn’t that the same principle which the progressive left calls odious when it is used against sex offenders who have served their terms?

Yes, it is.

Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
 
Even the ones we later repealed because we realized that they weren’t working out? 😉
 
Well, the arguments rage on just as furiously there - even worse. It’s the human condition. As well, no one is required to reply to this thread or any thread. I am attempting to provoke thought, as it seems strangely inconsistent that one amendment is held sacred while the other is vilified. Curious.

Once the second amendment is gone, who or what will defend the first? This is something to ponder, as men far wiser than us formulated it and included it in our founding documents.
 
My point is that the Constitution isn’t etched in stone. It’s alterable by design. If people decide we don’t want the 2A anymore, then it’s perfectly legitimate to pull it out using the means specified in the Constitution itself.
 
True, but the inalienable rights are acknowledged as coming from Whom?

Starts with “G”

Not the government.
 
There are two different arguments to this. The first of which is a Catholic argument, and the second which is the argument as Americans. As Catholics many popes and other religious figures say that it is blasphemous to question the Lord in our hearts, minds, and actions. This could be considered a restriction on free speech. In countries where the population is predominantly Catholic, popes have supported legislation that makes it illegal to Speak ill of the church. One example of this would be the Vatican pushing such policies on Mussolini, and Mussolini complying in order to leave tensions with the church,As well as providing legitimacy to his regime by attempting to create an illusion of church backing. On the other perspective, most Americans respect the Constitution what it says. Whether or not they believe it should be strict interpretation, Or a flexible one is up to them, but the First Amendment supports free-speech.In Times of war Americans have sacrificed their free-speech rights to support the war effort. They have also sacrificed their First Amendment rights to protect the rights of others.
 
Saying that this or that right originated with God doesn’t make it so. People think female genital mutiliation is mandated by God. They’re wrong.

The Constitution/declaration of independence are flawed, man made documents. It’s not infalliable
 
Last edited:
Logical fallacy as I see it. You cannot define the best by the worst. There is God’s authority on earth and there is man’s. You may contrast the two but only to demonstrate the vast differences.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Click to expand...
CCC2265 doesn’t say a thing about calling 911 and waiting for a response.

With rights come grave responsibilities. So, why punish the right rather than hold the guilty responsible? That is the point of this thread. The current assault on the second amendment has zero to do with actual crime. It seeks to reduce the potential to commit crime. On principle, every man is equipped to commit rape. What then?
 
Last edited:
Perfectly explained.

Restrictions based on libel/slander vis-a-vis (sorry, no diacriticals, and not sure how to reliably make it on this forum software) 1A might be somewhat analogous to the conditions under which a person might lose rights under 2A.

I’ve asked this question before, and I have never gotten an answer to this question from a gun-grabber: Since I work in a gun free zone (hospital, this is state law where I am), why must I take annual training on how to respond to an active shooter event?

And the follow up: if we admit that “gun free zones” don’t keep out guns in the hands of criminals (who, almost by definition, don’t care what the law says), then why is disarming me, a law-abiding citizen, such a good idea?
 
Agreed. It’s CAF. We can discuss topics we want, obviously, but it’s most helpful if their link to the Catholic faith is clearly spelled out.
 
For the past ten years I have gone to a “gun-free” cancer clinic. Hmmm. “Self”, I said, “Do I want to be the only unarmed person when a homicidal manic enters?” How do I protect my loved ones (this includes all who are made in the image and likeness of God) if I am unarmed? Call 911 and hope the perp stops shooting or stabbing?
 
OK, now that those who are unaccustomed to diversity of opinion have flamed out of here, a mature, rational discussion might ensue.

Seriously, what law, what ordinance, what rule or regulation is going to expunge murder from the human heart? Our Lord taught that the heart is the source of all evil - yet progressives seem to think that the impossible task of eliminating material objects will magically change the human heart. I stand to be corrected, but in the progressive mind, freedom seems to be simply too risky.

And, as it is with all flesh, so goes the American experiment.
 
We’re wandering a bit. You’re now arguing that gun control is ineffective. That’s a separate argument. All I was saying was that you could legitimately remove or amend the 2A and not upset the Constituional order.

Also, the passage you cited clearly speaks to arms being used by civil authority, not individuals. It cuts against you as much as for you.

For the record, I’m not even opposed to private ownership of guns. I have four myself. I just don’t think guns are so sancrosanct that they can’t be balanced against other goods. You have a right to self defense, but that doesn’t mean it’s unlimited or unqualified.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top