Since we restrict the 2nd Amendment, why not restrict them all?

Question

OK, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. However, as common sense would have it, some people are obviously not supposed to have guns. Mentally retarded people, the Virginia Tech guy, convicted felons. For the good of the entire nation, we have selective gun control procedures put into place against these people.

We remove the rights of a few people to protect the rights of everyone else. And, for the most part, everyone is happy.

But why can't we do that with other Amendments? OK, I agree with everyone having free speech, but can't we just take groups like NAMBLA and just shut them up? They do just about as much good as an insane person with a gun, so why not simply remove their right?

I remember playing outside when I was a kid. My parents would let me go all day and not even check on me. When I had my children, I let them do pretty much the same thing, but I kept a little closer eye on them because the world was just getting crazy. But my children are almost ready to have kids, and I fear that they won’t even be able to let their children out of the house, there are so many crazy people out there.

Can’t we say that all people have freedom of speech, EXCEPT CHILD MOLESTERS?
Can’t we say “no cruel and unusual punishment”, EXCEPT FOR CHILD MOLESTERS?

We put restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, why not the rest?

How convenient. Not one person read the question.

Answer 1

We could do a trade off, libs want to restrict the second amendment, so in trade we get to restrict their first, sow their mouths shut and let them eat through a straw.

What a concept.

Can't we say that the punishment for pedophiles is death? That would certainly fix that.

Answer 2

What you are discussing are rational restrictions,after all even the most vehement 2nd amendment supporter is not against rational restrictions. I personally for one think a citizen should be able to own a machine-gun if they are a law abiding citizen,but no rational person would want that right to extend to a clearly deranged person.

And in a way I have no reason to feel that we cannot demand rational restrictions on other "rights". For example if you have a preacher glorifying violence against let us say for example homosexuals. One could argue that these comments fall within his right to free speech and his religious rights,as the Bible not only criticizes homosexuality but also condones violence against them. But can we as a society say that since his actions are the promotion of a criminal act that we can restrict his free speech and religious freedom for that reason? I say yes,and believe even our founding fathers might agree. If nothing else perhaps we can't charge him for the speech,but perhaps he is an accomplise if his words eventually lead to an actual crime. So to use the NAMBLA argument,perhaps we can't restrict the speech itself,but the moment anyone who attends one of their little seminars commits an act of child molestation we can reasonably charge those who promoted this idea to him as accomplises.

AD

Answer 3

Bush lied, people died! Big Oil! Corporate America! Global Warming!...oh wait, what was the question? I must have come down with Liberalism!

On a more serious level. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Freedom of Speech isn't the right to just go ahead and talk and get away with it. The Constitution has been perverted by those trying to get what they want out of it and put into their law. Reps, Dems...we're both guilty. When groups like the sick f**ks from NAMBLA speak out they should just be shot dead mid-sentence. How can any political party align themselves with a bunch of men that want to plug the "exit only" hole of a little boy?! There are laws that are supposed to protect children, whether or not they want Chester to deliver himself to him.

Don't ask about trying to stop this, I'm sure the left's cheerleader Sharpton would put a stop to you.

Answer 4

No, we should NOT restrict the second amendment PERIOD. There IS a bias in the responses. As YOU stated, a 'voluntary response bias' DOES exist. I do not currently own a firearm, but I DID qualify as 'marksman' on the US Marine rifle range before being released from basic training for other reasons.

Answer 5

Sounds good on the surface, but just who will decide whose speech will be squelched or limited? Remember who is in power now. These folks are seriously considering resurecting "The Fairness Doctrine". As unpleaasant as it is to have NAMBLA and other vile organizations have freedon of speech I am not willing to let the camels nose under the tent when it comes to freedom of speech. NAMBLA today, Fair Tax advocates tommorow!

Answer 6

i think you're on to something. insane people do not get to exercise the right to bear arms. child molesters should be castrated and then hung in the public square. you see what we do to perverts?

i don't know about the NAMBLA thing. free speech starts getting difficult once you start taking that right away from certain groups. but i'm all for the cruelest punishment for child molesters.

Answer 7

I'd take the logic in the other direction, why should 2nd Amendment rights be abridged?

Rights /can/ be forfeighted, of course - those who committ crimes are routinely deprived of many rights as punishment (the right to freedom, most notably, since they are often imprisoned). That's a different question.

Answer 8

Hands in the air and step back ftrom the koolaide.

Maybe when gun owners show responsibility and stop leaving them out for kids to sneak into school or for the owners to murder their wife and kids things would be different.

I've been all over the world from the fishing villages in Hong Kong to the back streets of Manila and it's so bizarre I've never needed a gun for protection

Answer 9

I don't know about ALL of the rest, but the First Amendment is limited. Slander and liable laws restrict that and a person is guaranteed the right to PEACEFUL assembly. The Patriot Acts pretty much destroyed the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Answer 10

in theory it sounds good and bad. there is a limit on free speech though,some speech can get you arrested. as for nambla,i know little about them besides what there name stands for,you seem to know a lot,please educate us. when we start limiting groups speech it can snowball out of control. noone is going to take our guns,stop worrying so much. firearms have evolved,so we do need limits.