The First Amendment does not protect me if I yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. Why not? That kind of free speech endangers the public safety. People in the theater, hearing “Fire!” would run, perhaps injuring themselves or others in their rush to get out.
The First Amendment does not protect me if I held a demonstration in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour. Why not? We do have a right to peaceably assemble. But not when it endangers public safety. Pedestrians holding signs in the street with cars hurtling by is a danger to their safety and that of others.
The First Amendment does not protect this newspaper if it published this headline: “The Martians Have Landed!” Freedom of the press does not extend to terrifying readers and causing a panic. It would endanger public safety.
The Second Amendment does not protect my owning a scud missile. Yes, we do have a right to keep and bear arms. But not when it would endanger public safety. The Second Amendment should not protect guns that can kill many people in a few minutes. Their ownership in private hands endangers all of us because they have the very real potential, as has been shown over and over and over, to be used to massacre people, adults and children.
We do have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, but not when these rights endanger the safety of us all.
Bridget Smith
Juneau
Comments (22)
Add commentWell said!
Great comparison
The NRA
Would happily give up the first in favor of the second.
Latitude58
D
Does that mean you will no longer be using the First Amendment to post your opinions?
A gun
protects all of your rights! The thug who is about to deny all of your rights, those expressed in law, and those not, such as your right to exist are best protected by a gun as you blow the thug away.
Only thing that is going to protect your rights from a bad guy with a gun is a gun in your hand a or a good guys hand!
In regards to your second paragraph
Have you driven Egan on election day? Mobs of sign waving people at McNugget, Mendenhall observation lot and 10th and Egan. With cars zooming by. Just like you describe as illegal.
Dartbucks
Not the same. She described "a demonstration in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour". What you described is people on the sidewalks, not in the middle of the intersection.
JNUKara,
Still an intentional distraction of drivers, and at our version of rush hours. But you are correct, they are not in the roadway.
I was wondering what the next
I was wondering what the next state of fear was going to be. The irrational fear of guns and the fear that guns can be taken away. I'm more afraid of what the Supreme Court will end up saying on this because laws will no doubt be passed that push boundaries under the guise of safety and the justices have seemed to be redefining words and taking liberties with 'intended meaning'.
People keep talking about senseless deaths and gearing up for a battle. How about we battle and get upset over other horrific things that effect far more people including children?
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Gun related deaths: less then 9000
While I feel we should have a dialog, try and keep things in perspective. Crime in general including gun related crimes are dropping, that's a fact. So calm the over hyped feelings and emotions and lets work together.
Comment
If we give up the 2nd Amendment we won't long have any of the other rights. So while Latitude is incorrect in saying we would happily give up a right, it is true that giving up the right to keep and bear arms would be the same as giving up the right to free speech. I am pleased to agree with Brad Fluetsch.
By the way, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights it recognizes them. Some liberal writers, such as those in the Economist recently, think that the Constitution can be amended and thereby take away our right to keep and bear arms. That is not true; the right is there whether the Bill of Rights recognizes it or not.
That is not to say that we will not need to one day use arms to defend the right. We may and we will. Local police officers and people now serving in the U.S. Armed Forces with whom I have spoken assure me they will be fighting right along with us. These people would not agree with Ms. Smith that additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would add to safety, and in fact they believe the world is less safe when fewer law-abiding citizens have guns.
Ms. Smith may have gone to schools that did not teach the Constitution. Rights bring responsibilities. I have a right to own and use firearms but I have a responsibility not to break the law such as commit murder.
There are an estimated 20,000 laws that define and restrict the use of firearms in the United States. President Obama seems to be demanding laws that restrict the law-abiding gun owner but he apparently has no interest in enforcement of the existing 20,000 laws. Possibly that is because President Obama believes there already are too many crack-sniffing gang-bangers in jail so even when those people violate many laws just by touching a gun he doesn't want those people prosecuted. If Obama believes there is some sort of racial complexion to the gun debate then he should speak to Condi Rice, a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, who often says that her father and uncle used their firearms to protect their families when people burned crosses on the lawn of the Rice home but the police refused to come. I have Jewish friends who support the 2nd Amendment for very similar reasons.
Ms. Smith, my rights do not put you in danger. You share that right, and most of us have had family defend that right all over the globe. The reality is that all firearms constructed using mid-19th Century and later technology can kill many people in a few minutes. All firearms in general use by law-abiding Americans today use technology developed in the 1890's. Technology has expanded other rights such as the Internet expanding free speech but firearms technology is suspended in time. And we will continue to use these firearms. I hope you will too.
Stu
Not sure what your data source is for 9,000 gun deaths, but the most recent data from the CDC (2011) has 31,672. Nearly equaling vehicle deaths.
I guess that's why the NRA and their puppets in congress have erected all sorts of roadblocks in front of the CDC investigating the underlying causes of gun mortality and injuries - don't want to learn anything y'know.
geedog, do you really think anyone read that rambling diatribe?
Rights...
Amendment 2 was not meant to protect you from other individuals, that is simply a bonus.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas
The world hasn't changed, your perfect world only exists in your head. You can believe in a utopian society where government is not corrupt and guns don't exist, but truth be known, your mind is existing in fiction, not reality.
To expand my argument...
Less than 2% of murders are committed with rifles of any sort, much less assault rifles. Most are committed with knives, fists and pistols. .22's are the most common firearm used for murder. Not as loud, small and light weight. The bullet is more likely to stay in the victim.
Now, let's compare. I have a semi-auto .22 calibre and I want to take out a room full of people. With several in the clip, quick clip change, I stand a pretty good chance of getting the job done. Doesn't really matter how big the bullet is when you have multiple bullets to plug the target with now does it. Now, let's try the same deal with an assault rifle. First, I need to get it into the room without anyone seeing it. Now, I have to take it out of whatever package I have without people noticing. Now, I have to aim it at someone in the room without them jumping on me first. And after it's all said and done, probably much easier to identify the guy holding the assualt rifle than it would be to identify the guy with the .22 in his jacket walking by a random victim.
Besides being in the military, I've had weapons drawn on me three times. Not once was it ever a rifle.
This is just another progressive step to destroy the Constitution. They really have absolutely no valid justification to do what they are doing except to push their agenda.
Wheres your outrage over the Patriot Act?
What a bunch of hypocrites! You can take away my right to privacy, tap my phones, feel my crotch at the airport....I'm OK with that...just don't take away my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity clip?
Now you spew your irrational fear that Obama wants all your guns... The gun makers are raking it in by feeding you fear of our President.
Ahhhh well...so it is with the weak minded...you are so easy to manipulate.
Mama, and Obama isnt
Mama, and Obama isnt manipulating the weak minded at all... Didnt he support ther Patriot act? Well Im sure he repealed it as soon as he was in power... Well, its probably on his to do list...
Glacier dog and wren -
Glacier dog and wren - Exactly!
Alaskastu -
Thank you for trying to bring some perspective. The two leading causes of death are Heart disease & Cancer. We don't need armed guards in out schools. Crazed gunmen aren't the biggest threat to our children. Sedentary lifestyle is. It is ok to talk about weapon stockpiling or gun control. But don't you dare talk portion control or cardio.
Imagine the leaps and bounds we could make in cancer research if we invested as much there as we currently invest in either end of the gun battle. How many years could we add to our children's lives by turning off the electronics, skipping the drive through and setting some soup to simmer in the crock pot while the family logs a mile or two at the track?
Who?
Who's making the money?
It's good to think about who is benefiting from any action, especially when it comes to politics. Now, who is benefiting from the gun scare? Arms companies. Now who is causing this fear? Obama. So, the arms companies he is "supposedly" against are raking it in. Where is his kick-back? What are we missing? Also, he's not exactly ending undeclared foreign wars. Is he a war profiteer like many of our presidents since WWII?
The way I see it, both the Dems and the Reps have made the banks, arms companies and insurance companies very rich over the past several administrations. All at our expense... And rarely, if ever, are any of them held accountable for their sometimes outright completely illegal activities.
I disagree that Obama is causing the fear
Hes not the one calling for pistol packing teachers or armed guards at the local school. Those are the fear mongers. I simply suggest we quit selling weapons of war to the general public and vigilant registration of EVERY weapon. I don't understand why that is offensive to gun owners.
more guns=more violence
Every gun should be registered, tracked and accounted for until it is destroyed....
You're wrong...
More guns ='s less violence. The stats prove it. Gun laws take guns away from people that abide by the law. Not sure when a gang member ever checked to see if they needed a permit. Didn't know Mexican drug cartels abided by our licensing requirements.
Mama T, your thought process may be genuine but it is dangerous.
Go ahead Mama T, disarm the law abiding Americans and let's watch crime go up! It happens every time yet the liberals out there enjoy tilting the statistics.
High powered assault rifles are RARELY EVER used to commit crimes!
Did I say disarm?
I never suggested disarming Americans...You can keep your guns.
I suggest keeping track of each gun until destruction....to me this includes second hand sales, gun shows and internet transactions. Registered and transfered titles. I suggest a ban on private ownership of assult weapons.
How do these modifications interfear with your rights? Do you need an assult weapon?
You argue by inserting your own text into the discussion
Assault weapons...
Let's see just how educated you are on the topic Mama T. You obviously are strongly in favor of banning assault rifles. Now, please tell us exactly what % of crimes in the US are committed with assault rifles. Just so you know, when it comes to violent crimes, it is far less than 1%. When it comes to outright murders, it is far less than 1%. No matter how you tip the scales, it is less than 1%. In fact, less than 2% of murders are committed with any form of rifle. Bolt action, pump action, lever action, any action.
So, now explain to me how banning assualt rifles will decrease violence. For that matter, please explain your statement that more guns ='s more violence.