re: #256 lawhawk

The wingnut brigade has been quite vehement in their demands to gut the First Amendment in pursuit of having a completely unfettered and unregulated 2d Amendment, when their plain language suggests the opposite.

The 1st provides for an unfettered right (but which the Courts have repeatedly found that government can impose restrictions).

The 2d provides a limited right (but the Courts have found that government limitations are just that - limited).

Some of these folks, including the legal types like Reynolds, have argued that the power of the 2d backs the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech.

An argument can be made that it’s the opposite.

It was the right to free speech - and political speech in particular - that made everything else possible. Now, these wingnuts are pushing to punish someone for speaking their mind on a hot-button topic, and the wingnut response is to silence him. Outstanding work that.

But speech is useless with the force to defend it. It doesn’t matter what you have to say if I can just punch you in the mouth if I don’t like it, not unless there’s something to stop me.