The Four Problems With Comparing Gun Control to Regulation of Speech

     Sometimes, the statement is made that we ban certain forms of speech, so we can also regulate certain forms of firearms. Well there's about four things wrong with this, IMO:

1) Yes, speech can be regulated to some degree and certain forms even outlawed, such as the classic, "Fire in a crowded movie theater" example. But the government cannot just regulate speech however they please. The same is true with firearms. The government can regulate firearms (and does!), but it historically has had good reasons for most (not all) regulations, such as regulating automatic fire weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, powerful weapons (generally guns over .50 caliber), and of course other weapons ranging from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to battle tanks and attack helicopters and so forth.

2) If speech was regulated in the way that some want to regulate guns, then it would no longer be a question of what are you not allowed to say, but rather, what ARE you allowed to say, and you would have to get a permit to be able to say it, and then be very limited in terms of the medium in which you could speak.

3) To compare an "assault weapons ban" to speech laws would be like if politicians were to propose an "Assault Speech Ban" or maybe a "Hate Speech" ban, but then they get to define "Assault Speech" or "Hate Speech" However they please (say speech critical of government).

4) Many gun control proponents say, "We just want to ban the assault weapons, but we are fine with guns for legitimate hunters and sport shooters." This would be like saying, "We just want to ban the hate speech" (defined as being any speech critical of government let's say) "but we are fine with free speech for legitimate authors, playwrights, scriptwriters, etc..." well it would immediately be pointed out that the First Amendment is not about solely protecting free speech as a form of recreation, it is about protecting free speech so that a person can express their views and be critical of the government. Just the same, the Second Amendment is not about protecting a right to arms solely for recreational purposes either, it is about protecting the right of a person to keep arms in the event that a person or group of persons seeks to make war on that person and/or their family, and if the government was to move towards authoritarianism.

Gun Control Bill Dies in Senate

Personally, I am fine with universal background checks, the problem with the whole idea is that the likely only way to enforce it is to have a gun registry. And gun registries generally lead to gun confiscation. We've seen it happen already in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the police chief ordered his police officers to go door-to-door and confiscate people's firearms. We've also had politicians, such as Diane Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo, talk about gun confiscation. So we have politicians who would be willing to do it, if they had the ability.

It also is a complete affront to the idea of your fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is not the government's business what guns you own unless they are a special type of gun such as an automatic fire weapon, explosives, or something like that. So overall, it is probably good that it died for now.

RIP

Wasn't able to get to my blog as of late, so I just wanted to say a few things:

1) RIP to Margaret Thatcher, who stood up to Communism and turned the U.K. around, making it a world power again.

2) RIP to all of the people maimed and killed in the Boston Marathon.