Dear advocates of Gun Control:
When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.
That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.
Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.
In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)
Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.
This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”
Sounds pretty ridiculous right?
Ya, we think so too.
When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.
That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.
Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.
In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)
Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.
This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”
Sounds pretty ridiculous right?
Ya, we think so too.
Last edited:
breaking it down like that really shows how stupid these proposed new laws are. You should send that to all the government officials
