Skip to content

Some Rights are More Equal than Others

February 2, 2015

The first amendment recognizes some of our fundamental rights and tells governments not to infringe upon them.  The language is easy to understand.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So far, so good.  We think we revere human rights, but do we really?  What if we treated the other rights in the constitution the same way we treat the right of self-defense protected by the second amendment?

  • silenced libertyYou would need a permit before you could speak in your home state, and that permit is only good in the state where you live.  Sure, that sounds crazy, but that is what would happen if we abused the right of free-speech the way we abuse the right of self-defense.
  • It would be illegal for you to speak in public once you crossed into another state. Don’t be shocked.  The government says it is only regulating your right to speak, not infringing on it.. yet this is exactly the way we infringe on the right of self-defense today.
  • You would have to take a speech test in each state to earn your speaking permit. In some states, you’d need to take a class and pay a fee to receive the required permit to talk inside your own home.  Politicians say this is necessary to protect the public from dangerous speech.
  • Some states don’t recognize the right of non-residents to speak at all.  That is how our government “respects” and “regulates” the right of self-defense.
  • If you did get your permit to speak, then there are further restrictions on the number of words you can speak at one time. We can’t let you speak too fast or too loudly.
  • These speech restrictions only apply to citizens.  People who speak for the government can use all the words they want.  They speak very loud indeed.Armed Swat 6
  • Suppose you wanted to gather together with your friends so you could pray, sing and play music together.  All the microphones, amplifiers, cables and speakers would be regulated by the state.  The speakers can’t be too big, or too small.  The amplifier can’t be too powerful.  The cables can’t be too long.  Only the government needs to speak that loudly.. just as we regulate gun owners today.
  • You finally received your permit to own a small public address system.  Now local law enforcement needs to know which church you will attend if you want to transport your speakers outside the home.  You are required to take the PA system directly to and from church.  Detours while you are carrying the speakers are not allowed under penalty of becoming a felon.  That is how we treat gun owners.. and politicians say it is for public safety.
  • You wouldn’t get to vote ever again if you stopped for gas or to eat while carrying the PA system to church.  Don’t look shocked.  Ignorance of the 23 thousand speech regulations is simply no excuse for even a silent violation!
  • Mere citizens can’t speak within a thousand feet of a school.  We do that to protect the children.
  • You will be silenced for life if you are under a restraining order.  You will also be silenced for life if you’re convicted of domestic violence.

Yes, that is how we treat gun owners in the United States.  The shocking thing is.. these absurd restrictions are all within the law.  Don’t confuse law with justice.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

~_~_

Rob
Please rate, share, and comment.

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. February 2, 2015 12:46 pm

    Quite well stated, Rob. Good job. I’m going to link this article to one of my discussion boards. “Republican Operative.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Luis permalink
    February 8, 2015 7:25 am

    A few years ago, SCOTUS struck down a law promulgated by the Stratford, OH town council that mandated that a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses had to obtain a permit from the town , before they could go door-to-door to distribute their “Watchtower” magazine. The REASONING behind this ordinance was to protect gullible senior citizens from being exploited by Jehovah’s Witnesses members, in the eyes of the Stratford Town council.

    Well, a Jehovah’s Witness brought suit claiming her First Amendment rights were being violated, and in the case Watchtower Society v. Town of Stratford, OH, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in her favor. Justice Stevens said something like: “…We find that a person who must first obtain a permit in order to speak to her neighbor about religious matters, to be repugnant”…

    As far-fetched as your analogy seemed to be at first glance, proved not to be so far-fetched after all.

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Some Rights are More Equal than Others | SlowFacts | BattleBlue1
  2. Some Rights are More Equal than Others. | The Shooters Hangout
  3. Books and Deadly Deceits | SlowFacts
  4. Episode 310 – Steffon Lamont Josey, Tatiana Whitlock, and Laura Carno |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: