Anti-Rights people don’t much like or understand the Constitution and how it works…but they’re perfectly willing to twist their limited understanding to suit their agenda.
Inevitably, the Second Amendment will be front and center in the national conversation as we try to make sense of yet another act of mass gun violence. But in the wake of the shooting at the Sikh temple, I find myself thinking as much about the First Amendment as the Second. If indeed it turns out that the gunman’s actions in Wisconsin were motivated by a hatred of Sikh religion and culture, the shooting may reveal an unintended consequence of our current interpretation of the Second Amendment: rampant gun violence threatens public safety, which in turn may limit our capacity — or willingness — to openly exercise our First Amendment rights to speech, assembly, or religious expression.
Is one Amendment more important than another? We should not have to choose. But the deadliness and frequency of recent gun violence in America — last year nearly 12,000 people were killed by guns in this country — makes me wonder whether we haven’t already prioritized one over the other. In the gun control debate, we hear a lot about guns as deterrents. But for Sikh-Americans in Wisconsin, or other religious groups all around America, mass gun violence that targets religion might be a different kind of deterrent — a deterrent to free expression of belief. Freedom of religion is protected by law, but in practice, fear for public safety supersedes abstract rights. That fear unravels trust, the fabric of civil society and a shared culture.
In a society overrun with guns, how free can speech be? How free is religion?
Of course mush-mind here seems to miss the elephant in the room. The jerk who shot up the Sikh temple was killed by the police. NOBODY is complaining about that! Compare this to Kent State, or the less tragic Occupy Wall Street.
You see, first the US Constitution doesn’t GRANT rights, but simply PROTECTS them. You have the right to freely speak, associate, worship, gather, protest, publish etc, but that stops at riots, slander, libel, causing a public panic, etc. You also have the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self-defense, but this does NOT protect the right to MURDER.
The guy was shooting at the police and innocent people, so the cops shot him back. Also its “Arms” not “Guns”, the Sikh leader attempted to stab the shooter, he unfortunately was unsuccessful, but if he had killed this guy, he wouldn’t face any charges.
Further, dipshit doesn’t seem recognize how free the Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or the Buddhists in Burma had to worship freely when they were disarmed?
Every freedom can be abused…the only answer to this is MORE freedom, not less. Anti-Rights people abuse their 1st Amendment rights by lying and fabricating “facts” to support the gun-ban agenda. I don’t ask for restrictions of them posting, publishing or broadcasting, instead I exercise MY RIGHTS to fight back.
Same goes with the guns. You’ll notice that the shooter was STOPPED by ANOTHER GUN! And trust me there is little difference between the cop and his gun and me and my gun in this specific instance.
Why do the Blood Dancers seek to remove our ability for self-defense? My life is a gift from God and, therefore, is worthy of protection. Hard to do in a “Gun Free” Goblin Shooting Gallery.
I would argue that both amendments are EQUALLY important. One helps defend the other. My free speech allows me to defend my right to bear arms, my right to bear arms is helps defend my free speech.
I think people really believe that we will never have another 1930’s Germany or another western genocide (hello Yugoslavia!) or whatever. The most recent shooting was terrible, but I was struck by a picture in the Washington Post of an FBI armoured troop carrier on the street. What the hell did they need that for? I realize my .22 ain’t gonna do shit against that but I sleep better knowing I have it.
Someone needs to point out to this silly asshole that rights are not magic. Yes, we have the right to free speech, religion, life etc. duely protected by the constitution yadda yadda yadda; however, we can exercise those rights only as far as we protect them. If we let a bully beat us down and silence us, we no longer have the freedom of speech. Sure, the “right” is still there, but the freedom is lost and we are no longer able to exercise the right. This is what the second ammendment is all about. Protecting the right to have the means to defend our rights. If we let the anti take that away, not only do we lose the freedom to own arms, we also lose the ability to protect our other rights as well.
Please note, I am not saying that arms are the only or first answer to every violation of our rights. The court systems exist and can be used for many such cases. However, there are times when people’s rights are violated to a degree that arms are the ultimate answer. If the Sikh decide that worship in their manner is too dangerous because of a gunman, today they can decide if they want to lay down and let the bully negate their rights, or they can defend those rights. In the case that they are afraid of a gunman coming killing them for their religious beliefs, the answer is to arm themselves against such a threat (or hire armed security). If we let the anti take away the right to arms, they would no longer have that ability.
s
Yep, hence why I point out to people that my philosophy is non-violence, but anti-pacifism. I will NEVER be passive, I will always confront problems, but I will do it non-violently unless its a last resort. A military dictatorship does not want to discuss issues with the peasants, nor does a violent criminal or assassin, for those instances violence is the ONLY answer (even for pacifists, who if they are true to their misguided tenant means dying or being brutalized) As Jeff Cooper said: ” any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
Weer’d,
You see, first the US Constitution doesn’t GRANT rights, but simply PROTECTS them. You have the right to freely speak, associate, worship, gather, protest, publish etc, but that stops at riots, slander, libel, causing a public panic, etc. You also have the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self-defense, but this does NOT protect the right to MURDER.
Quibbling over wording here I’m sure but I think it is important. The right to free speech does not stop at ‘slander, libel, causing a public panic’ but rather recognizes a person can be punished for the misuse of that right.
The idea is that speech is protect but one must face the consequences if used criminally but one is free to speak the truth — without having to get government approval.
The same concept applies, but only partly, to violent crime – it is offense to do this or that but it is not an offense to use violence for defense.
This becomes an important distinction because the antis want to claim that ‘violence never solves the problem’ or ‘all violence is wrong’ — WRONG…just as it isn’t wrong to speak the truth sometimes using violence is the correct solution.
If we let them frame the debate in terms of ‘common sense’ restrictions — we’ve already lost much of our freedoms.
I don’t ask for restrictions of them posting, publishing or broadcasting, instead I exercise MY RIGHTS to fight back.
Hit them with this every chance we get. Because that is the point — ask them if because someone lied in Boston if they should be restricted from blogging in Oregon. Ask them if someone slanders in Savannah if they should be required to get a permit to post in Minnesota. We can show people that their ‘common sense’ restrictions do nothing to curb the problems.
One one point, the journalist and I are in agreement: One amendment is not more important than another. The control freaks have been struggling to take away gun rights for decades, and our side has said the same thing. Rights are rights. Unfortunately, the author here was just being rhetorical. By contrast, we mean it.
Legal Disclaimer Time. I don’t know about Wisconsin, but in Ohio, it’s against the Law for a CHP Holder to carry concealed in any Church, Mosque, Synagogue, etc. When I asked why I got this answer:
Sunday School. “It’s to Protect the Children.”
Plus, various Churches have Private Schools on the Property, Head Start classes, etc. So the Whole Place gets treated like it was P.S. 145.
Also, some Faiths are SOOOO Anti-Gun, it’s Unreal.
Which doesn’t do ONE DAMNED THING to Prevent a Goblin from Slaughtering the Innocent.
Just ask the Poor Amish Girls MURDERED in Pennsylvania a few years ago.
Tell you what, if I was in Charge of the Sikh Faith in the U.S. I’d tell the Congregation “from now on, we Open Carry Colts instead of Daggers.”
But that’s just me, of course.
“In addition to,” not “instead of.” Knives are still damned useful.
Agreed!
I have a knife I carry everywhere since I am not allowed to carry at work….