It is NOT the same

[dugby]

I grow tired of hearing about how current restrictions on our freedom of speech are not a problem with anyone and therefore we should be willing to accept "reasonable" restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights.

To make a 1st amendment restriction comport with all the restrictions we presently suffer on our 2nd amendment rights it would go something like this:

Assault Talkers Ban

1. Slander is a crime.

2. Lets make a law that makes it illegal for a private citizen to make any comment about a public figure. This will keep the incidence of slander down.

The fallacy of their argument is that the current restrictions for speech are all retroactive. The constraints they are trying to foist on us are all preemptive. Give up your rights to prevent crimes. I am all for reasonable restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights. Discharging your gun negligently, Threatening people with it frivolously, etc. are things I am happy to draw the line on. Giving up my rights just in case I might participate in a crime is WAY over the top.

 

[Dale00]

And don't forget assault vehicles - any vehicle designed to be able to go faster than the speed limit. These are just plain wrong and need to be restricted.

 

[tweetr]

You are right, they are not the same. The prohibition in the Second Amendment actually is more absolute than that in the First! The subject of the First Amendment is "Congress", while the subject of the Second Amendment is "right". The only prohibition in the First Amendment is that Congress shall make no law. Thus the only agency restricted in any way is Congress, and the only restriction is that it shall make no law "establishing" or "prohibiting" religion; or "abridging" freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition.

By contrast the prohibition in the Second Amendment is absolute and contains no wiggle room whatsoever. Because the focus in on the right, not on Congress as in the First Amendment, the restriction is on every (federal, until the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) agency of government. Because the right of the people "shall not be infringed", there exists simply no permissible government restriction on that right whatsoever. It is impossible to regulate or legislate with respect to keeping and bearing arms in any nature or degree whatsoever without "infringing" the right to keep and bear arms.

The right "of the people" in the Fourth Amendment, for sake of comparison, also makes the Fourth Amendment more absolute than the First, but less absolute than the Second. In the Fourth Amendment the restriction is against "violating" the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effect against unreasonable searches and seizures, while in the Second Amendment the restriction is against "infringing" the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment itself contains exceptions to the restriction in the case of warrants issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. No such exception of any kind exists in the Second Amendment. See the difference? It is important.

Not that the Federal Government obeys the law of the Fourth Amendment either! In my capacity as a professional pilot I travel weekly on the airlines. Every time I travel I am searched in my person, papers, and effects without any warrant of any kind; and personal property items as utterly innocuous as water bottles and nail clippers are subject to seizure without compensation in these warrantless searches; and Heaven forfend that I should bear any arms there!