The First Amendment is not absolute, it is nuanced. It says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...." Note that it does not say, "...abridging speech." This means Congress can not make any laws that would alter the meaning of or limit what you say. It can, however, proscribe punishment for the use foul language or for slander and libel. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but does not recognize a right to free speech. The First also prohibits government to pass law establishing a national religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and it protects the right to peaceably assemble(not assemble, but peaceably assemble), and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The phrase, "...,shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is not equal to, "Congress shall make no law...abridgeing..." in the First Amendment. The difference is in the different meanings of the words "Infringe" and "Abridge", and the context in which they are used. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is unconditional. "Shall not be infringed" is quite clear. Assembly is conditional; one must petition the government for redress of grievances, not storm the Capitol; and say what you will, but be prepared to face any consequences of your libelous, slanderous, and foul-mouthed utterances.
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute. It is protected in that fashion in the Constitution. Don't fall prey to the argument that the First and Second Amendments are alike... They are not. One speaks of nuanced freedom dealing with the
use of language, the other speaks of an absolute right dealing with the simple, benign, and innocuous
keeping and bearing of arms. Neither one has bearing on the other for force and effect, though they can protect one another. Don't let either one down.
Eric C. Sanders wrote,
" When you accept prior restraint, you assume that limits will exist - but who sets those limits? And why? Because they prevent harm - or because it makes controlling a population easier?"
In regard to the portion of Eric's quote I set in bold; while some people advocate abdicating our rights for some imagined greater good, it creates an avenue for wanna-be tyrants to slip in under the cover of these naive ambitions. I can imagine a George Soros or a Hitler figure licking his chops while our rights are being diminished by these people. It doesn't matter if it is being done specifically to control a population or not - it sets the wheels in motion for that to happen. What do they call that? Oh, yes, "Unintended Consequences."
Woody
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
