We keep hearing about ‘reasonable’ restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights from the progressives. They insist that we must do it to protect the children or for public safety, despite the fact that nothing that has been proposed would have stopped any of the recent incidents to which they refer. I wish to apply their logic to the First Amendment’s statements regarding the freedom of the press:
- No reasonable person could object to background checks and licensing for all reporters. After all, reporters make mistakes and their mistakes could easily cost lives and fortunes. It’s only reasonable to protect the public by ensuring that only responsible journalists are able to exercise this right.
- Nobody needs to use tens of thousands of words for a story. It only takes up valuable paper and ink and causes excessive bandwidth on the internet. Any story worth printing can be accomplished in 500 words or less.
- Printing Presses might be used to distribute ‘hate’ speech, so all of them must be registered, licensed and their loss or destruction reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours. This applies to all computers, cell phones, printers, fax machines, copy machines, televisions, radios, printing presses or any other device used to disseminate news.
- All purchases of any of the above devices requires a waiting period before they may be taken home. If purchased over the internet, they must be sent to a local store to deliver to the end user.
- Certain types of powerful presses should only be in the hands of the government since they can churn out significant volumes of material that the government might find objectionable.
- Each state must be allowed to determine its own publishing rules and publishing across state lines is not permitted unless the state the publication is going into permits it. This applies to print, broadcast, internet or any other type of publication.
- States may completely ban private ownership of presses if they believe the person is a risk to society or themselves, or if they have financial trouble, or if they have been convicted of a felony, or any other reason a local official decides to use to deny them their right to publish.
No progressive would ever tolerate such restrictions on the First Amendment. Why do they think that it’s OK to apply them to the 2nd? Their claims, no matter how emotionally appealing, no matter how couched in ‘public safety’, no matter how ‘reasonable’ they insist they are, do not stand up to basic analysis.
The Constitution says that our right (notice it does not create it, it confirms it) may not be infringed. What part of this do progressives not understand? If they don’t like the 2nd Amendment, by all means, try to amend the Constitution to remove it. Of course, that would take 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states. They couldn’t get 60 votes to trash the Constitution. That’s why they don’t bother.