Time for 1st Amendment restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, MB, we are talking irresponsible abuses! Not the routine, responsible exercise of the freedom (“right” for those so inclined). Ugly speech is protected. “Ugly” guns are hated irrationally and penalized - their owners vilified. Look at the hate I have received just in this thread! My crime? Disagreeing with progressives (whose mantra is “diversity”). And I am willing to lay down my life for even the most odious of CAF members.

Libel and slander are punishable - true. But please note this: in libel and slander (red herrings in this argument) there is a victim! A victim! Where is the victim of the law-abiding?

No cogent answer there.

What if pulp newspapers were banned? There would be a shocked outcry! Progressives have agitated for and received their beloved “hate crimes” and “hate speech” legislation. It seems that they only prefer that part of the first amendment that they agree with. Silence the opposition - doesn’t that sound vaguely familiar?

Encroachment on human freedom is a slippery slope. Eastern Europe. Western Europe. Central and South America. Asia. We are drowning in examples of progressive-think run amok.

We live in a culture of death which - when death lapses from the figurative to the literal, seeks to punish the innocent! From the unborn to law abiding gun owners, progressives seek ban physical objects. Where does this stop?

Not even G-d denies man such freedom. But man, particularly “progressive” man, seems to assume superiority to G-d.

That is both arrogance as well as injustice at the highest human level.
 
Last edited:
Virtually all of your authoritative comments and “suggestions”

You, who diametrically oppose me, seek to frame the argument in your terms. Commendable on your part. Look, I know that I am stupid. But, do you really think that I am that stupid?

Back on point: the media continues to program the populace in how to think - and that thinking has very little freedom in it.

Professor Peter Kreeft laments the lack of critical thinking skills in our culture. 90 years ago, Monsignor Ronald Knox lamented the fact, stated again, that all were taught to read, but none to think!

We reap what we sow.
 
Have you Americans ever considered not having a written constitution? Many countries work really well without one.
 
po18guy said:
Do you oppose freedom on a general basis? OK, which freedoms are simply too dangerous?
Click to expand...
See, this is the type of logic error that makes the first post difficult to understand. I said that Jefferson is not God, and that his list is not God’s list, and you conclude that must mean I think some freedoms are too dangerous.

I note an interesting irony in that the idea of freedom is the progressive idea, as opposed to the traditional principle that error has not rights. Once you take the discussion from what is legal, constitutional, or cultural, into the area of what God has ordained, then the terms and discussion must change, unless you are a Deist, like Jefferson, and have no problem invoking God for a theatrical point. With God, even life is not a right, but a gift, as is liberty. The pursuit of happiness, of course, as seen in his day and ours is not only not a right, but could even be seen as a perversion, if happiness is the goal for its own sake.

So my point is that the Constitution can be amended, and was designed to, with damage to the moral order. If results are what we judge by, it might even be said that the Constitution is a failure in preserving the moral order, allowing freedom to become the vehicle for a society to decay into deeper sin.
po18guy said:
Anyway, sides will be, and have been chosen.
Click to expand...
Not really. The world does not really work in inflexible stereotypes. But that may be why our country is so broken.
po18guy said:
Back on point: the media continues to program the populace in how to think - and that thinking has very little freedom in it.
Click to expand...
The media, at least the major media, does what it always does; make money. The internet is now the major source of biased propaganda dressed up as media, and there is a lot of that stuff from this new ultra-conservative movement as well as the same old liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay stuff, propaganda.

You know what would be a great college course, or on-line instruction? Reading for bias.

Think about it. If one could teach how to read material and recognize the signs subjective editorializing disguised as news, then half of the internet would be defused. Here is one guideline I offer. If a site always is enjoyable but leaves you with some anger, it is only entertainment, not trustworthy as news.
 
Last edited:
We should be careful, because we already have a restriction of the 1st. The problem is it restricts the righteous and upholds the evil.
 
Since most American have never read it, then it’s almost as if we don’t have one. 😎
 
Who needs a Constitution? Matters like free speech and gun ownership can just be handled by the Ministry of Information and Compliance Management (MICM).

Then, we can just wait for them to announce policy to us on Official State TV and send representatives to our homes to verify loyalty to the State. 😎
 
The Catholic principle on freedom of speech places it “within the limits of the moral order and the common good” (Pacem in Terris 12). The common good of course includes man’s spiritual well being too (Ibid 59). Therefore, there’s nothing wrong with limits on speech that is immoral or harmful to society’s temporal or spiritual well-being.

That being said, our particular country has never had a truly proper conception of the common good as a guiding principle, and our government has never had any interest in measuring its decisions against the true religion (cf. CCC 2244). Therefore, in those particular circumstances, as a practical matter, a broad limit on the government’s power to restrict speech ultimately better serves the common good IMO (in other words, we get to the same result, despite the disparity in principles).
 
Last edited:
You know people say I’m uncharitable but lest I’m not unreasonable. Po18guy, eat a Snickers.
 
I am the first to recognize the abuses of the progressive left since I have personally seen these abuses in my college teaching profession, particularly at faculty meetings among instructors discussing administrative policies. There is, to me, a disturbing assumption of conformity in regard to liberal policies on all kinds of issues. I even dared point out that all faculty and all students do not think alike and that the liberal principle of free speech as well as academic freedom behooves us to allow students to discuss these issues in classroom settings, if appropriate to the subject matter at hand, while withholding our own viewpoint until the students have had their say. As a result, I was met with predominantly stone faces in utter shock at such a “radical” suggestion. So yes, I have experienced progressive politics run amok first-hand at my job. This does not mean, of course, that the principle of diversity (an old-fashioned liberal policy in the first place) should be abandoned. It is just that some in the progressive movement have twisted this principle to such an extent that it resembles a brand of conservatism in its darkest hour. We should all work together on the abuses of individual liberty including gun ownership abuses, as you indicate. At the same time, however, we should all work together for the common good of society, which might include certain limitations of individuals’ rights for the betterment of the safety and security of people as a whole. As stated before, it is a difficult juggling act in which first the broad goals must be made explicit and then the details hammered out. Most of all, the distrust of members on both sides must be dissolved as far as possible to ensure a meeting of the minds on the issues. A daunting task, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Well it’s already happening on college campuses, even supposedly Catholic ones.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Who needs a Constitution? Matters like free speech and gun ownership can just be handled by the Ministry of Information and Compliance Management (MICM).

Then, we can just wait for them to announce policy to us on Official State TV and send representatives to our homes to verify loyalty to the State.
Click to expand...
I wonder sometimes if Americans have deified the constitution.
 
You sound like a person who supports Free Speech as long as you agree with it.

No, the First Amendment does not need to be nor should it be restricted.

-LS
 
It isn’t the hospital administration that made the decision, it is the state legislature (primarily Chicago Democrats). And yes, they are trying their best to disarm the innocent so that the evil-doers of the world will have free reign. Because that is what happens with all these “common sense” rules made by people who probably can’t explain the difference between a muzzle and a breech or think that they can “instantly save lives” by stamping serial numbers on ammunition (which part, they don’t say), or think that factory-standard magazines are “high capacity” instead of standard capacity, etc.

Chicago Democrats who ignore the fact that despite having more draconian restrictions than the rest of the state, Cook County has a disproportionate number of murders compared to the rest of the state. For example, in 2016 (breakdowns with details tend to be 2-3 years behind). In 2016, there were 1041 murders in the state of Illinois. 854 of those took place in Cook County, which had a population of 5223232 in that year. The rest of the state, with a total of 7747138 population had 207 murders.

As far as armed guards in the hospital, they do not exist in the state of Illinois. Open carry is illegal for anyone who is not a sworn police officer, and that includes non-police security guards. Our security is armed with a walkie-talkie and handcuffs. And unless they are already present because someone who’d been arrested is being brought in, the police are 10-15 minutes away.

And I know that I, in particular, have a non-zero chance of being a target. I don’t know how great the chance is that he intends to try to murder me, but I know that he knows where I live, where I work , and where I go to church. So yes, if I were able to have my gun with me when I am at work, it could make a difference if the worst happens. Because I know, unlike these idealistic gun-grabbers, that “cannot legally obtain a gun” has nothing to do with stopping a determined criminal from getting a gun.

So again, why is it of any benefit to disarm the law-abiding? “Gun free” zones have time after time been proven to be ineffective at doing anything other than making a few people feel good, as though they are “doing something” whilst mistaking their “something” for “something effective”; ignoring the fact that it is not the gun that is the issue, but the heart of the person who intends to harm others. The criminal will bring his guns wherever he wants. Concealed carry holders have routinely been demonstrated to be among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. By limiting the innocent, you make the world less safe.
 
@Melissa, you are not going to get anywhere with your argument as long as you persist in the totally nonsensical claim that lawmakers truly want evil to have free reign. Unless you think they are all completely insane, there is no rational reason for them to want that. I sincerely advise you to limit your argument to what is reasonable. For example, you could try to make the case that lawmakers want to reduce gun violence but are going about it in the wrong way - not because they want evil to succeed, but because they just don’t know any better. Then you could proceed to show how they are wrong in their assumptions. There is real hope for you in that direction, and I really want to see you succeed in presenting your serious argument in the best possible light.

That being said, I will respond to some of your specific points:
despite having more draconian restrictions than the rest of the state, Cook County has a disproportionate number of murders compared to the rest of the state.
Click to expand...
This is a true statement, but does not prove the gun control laws are counter-productive. There are other reasons for the high murder rate that have nothing to do with the draconian gun control laws.
… unlike these idealistic gun-grabbers…
Click to expand...
…as compared to those ideological gun-worshippers?
“Gun free” zones have time after time been proven to be ineffective at doing anything other than making a few people feel good
Click to expand...
A true statement. It is also true that gun-free zones have not increased murders either. There is no statistical evidence that changing from gun-free to concealed carry or vice versa has any effect on the murder rate.
By limiting the innocent, you make the world less safe.
Click to expand...
That depends on the limitation. In many cases limiting the innocent makes us safer.
As far as armed guards in the hospital, they do not exist in the state of Illinois. Open carry is illegal for anyone who is not a sworn police officer, and that includes non-police security guards. Our security is armed with a walkie-talkie and handcuffs. And unless they are already present because someone who’d been arrested is being brought in, the police are 10-15 minutes away.
Click to expand...
This is a problem with some hospitals - apparently yours included. And I am fairly sure that is hospital policy and not state law. But a growing number of hospitals are allowing armed guards inside the hospital, as you can see here. You could lobby your hospital to join in that movement.
 
Last edited:
Your certainty about it being hospital policy rather than state law is in error. I have told you that this is Illinois state law. That is reality.

But yes, there seems to be no further point in discussing with you, as it is quite clear that you are unwilling to accept correction on mistaken matters of fact, and your opinions are based on those errors of fact.
 
Melissa said:
Your certainty about it being hospital policy rather than state law is in error. I have told you that this is Illinois state law. That is reality.

But yes, there seems to be no further point in discussing with you, as it is quite clear that you are unwilling to accept correction on mistaken matters of fact, and your opinions are based on those errors of fact.
Click to expand...
I accept correction on that point. In your state, apparently, it is state law. But as you see from my link, it is not state law in many other states, and hospitals do indeed have armed guards inside. Rather than lobbying for a change that will allow you to carry a gun in the hospital, why not lobby for the much more achievable armed guards in hospitals. You know that if state law continues to forbid professional armed guards in hospitals, they are surely not going to allow you to be armed in a hospital.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top