Reader Jake F. writes:
I live in California, in the anti-gun bastion that is the heart of Silicon Valley. My state’s Attorney General just banned new handguns from entering the state. My state Assembly and Senate are mulling over more ways to further limit my rights, and I keep hearing one specific argument over and over in regards to why our Second Amendment rights are subject to whatever whims the pols in Sacramento deem actionable . . .
It’s an argument I’ve seen employed quite often by the pro-disarmament crowd that never made any sense to me. An argument regarding rights not being absolute, and it is an argument that is not often refuted. The response is generally lackluster, pointing to Heller for support, only to have that argument dismissed by those who believe Heller was handed down by a court that is “too conservative” or some other nonsense.
Others point to counter-arguments regarding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not supported by society, law or jurisprudence, and is consequently weak. And sometimes the argument is simply ignored, which is especially easy to do when dealing with people one feels are misinformed or stupid. But ignoring a problem doesn’t (usually) negate its existence. I hope to change that and allow everyone who encounters this argument the ability to rationally and calmly explain to the person making such a fallacious statement that they are wrong, and why.
The argument generally goes along the lines of:
“Rights aren’t absolute! You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, which is a restriction on the First Amendment! Just like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is not absolute, which means when we ban your assault rifle that will be constitutional! Explain to me how you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater but you can own any gun you want!”
The retort is thus:
“Restrictions on rights relate to the way in which the rights are exercised, not the form of the exercise itself.”
To elaborate, we don’t restrict the types of speech, whether it’s spoken, written, visual, or otherwise. You aren’t allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor are you allowed to send a text to all the theatergoers exclaiming that they’re about to be consumed in flame. Neither are you allowed to intercut the film with footage declaring that everyone in the theater will be killed unless they immediately evacuate in a mass panic. The act of using speech to cause panic is what is restricted, not the way in which the message is delivered.
Similarly, we do not restrict the types of speech when it comes to forms of political speech, be it rhetoric delivered to a crowded amphitheater, flyers dropped in a mailbox, telephone calls, commercials, etc. The act itself is protected and we acknowledge that if the act is legal and just, then it doesn’t matter in what way the act is undertaken. Speech is protected in all of its forms, so long as the expression itself is legal.
Subsequently, access to all of the various forms of expression is not restricted by the government. However there are natural factors that come into play when determining what types of speech you may use at a given moment. A hoarse throat can restrict you from giving a speech, an unpaid phone bill can prevent you from calling somebody, or perhaps one doesn’t know how to read or write.
These restrictions are natural or incidental, but they are not undertaken by force of law. The government does not have its hand in how you may exercise your right to free expression, and the limits on that right are overcome through personal effort and ability, or other incidental or societal factors unrelated to the law. Restrictions on the types of arms in our possession must be looked at in the same light.
What does it matter if I protect myself with a shotgun, a handgun, or an AR-15? What does it matter if I merely own them, as is my right? Why does the tool I use to protect myself matter? If nobody else comes to harm but my aggressor, what does it matter? If the principle of self defense is a right, why would one arbitrarily restrict the tools I may use to exercise that right? Furthermore, why should the government determine, by force of law, in what manner I may exercise my natural right to self-defense?
To argue that we are allowed to restrict a right based not on the way it is exercised but rather on the tools with which we exercise it allows arbitrary restrictions on our fundamental principles. It leads to violations of our civil rights, be they warrantless interception of emails or phone calls, undue scrutiny on political dissent, or bans on the tools of our personal defense. To restrict not what we do but rather how we do it, even where no other laws are broken, is detrimental to the fundamental values of our society.
Bravo, bravo
Get this man a beer
You’re preaching to the choir here and the people you’re arguing with don’t care about rights. These mouth-breathing hoplophobes reflexively want the state to punish others that do or own things they don’t like, because they are small-minded intolerant busybodies. Few of them would be brave enough to come for you or your guns themselves. They are craven cowards.
Time for a smackdown over this particularly nasty term, “mouth-breather”.
I don’t expect you to know enough to practice circumspection re: your own language, but you’re clearly blissfully unaware that a number of human beings have sinoidal deformities and sinus issues that, at times, or permanently, incapable of breathing through their nasal passages. THEY’RE NOT SLACk-JAWED CRETINS, they simply cannot breathe well (or at all) through their noses.
So I’m just going to assume you’re ignorant and did not intend any meanness, okay?
Looks like a paid spot to me.
Not unlike your mom
Welcome chance to actually discuss guns. There, I edited out the stuff that got it deleted the first time.
Well said, sir! Unfortunately I think your use of reason and logic has disqualified you from consideration in the current emotional debate…
I dunno – that sportscoat’s a walking felony…
I can’t take credit for this, but this is the best rebuttal I’ve heard to anyone who says “it’s ridiculous that you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater but you can carry a loaded gun!”:
True, you can’t yell “fire” unless there’s actually a fire. Turns out that even if you have a gun in the theater, you can’t actually use it unless there is a credible threat to life and limb. Requiring that I leave my gun at home because it could be used to shoot someone is like saying that I must duct-tape my mouth shut before entering a theater because it could be used to yell “fire”.
But you have to understand the mindset–the presence of a gun, standing alone is (to them) a clear and present danger to public safety. The more guns, the greater the risk. Just ask the police chief of (most) any large urban area, they’ll tell you its true. In fact, they’ve so testified, even though there is not a single study they can point to that supports this opinion. And this is why you can’t get a CCW in LA. And why self-defense is not a good and sufficient reason to bear arms in public–why your need must be “greater” than that of the average citizen. [Actually I’ve never understood this concept–it necessarily implies that only those of us who have special needs have a second amendment right, but clearly not all of us. How that squares with a constitutional right possessed by all is not comprehensible.]
WE also need to understand that the gun control views used in Calif. and the other slave states is PURE Marxism , with that we look at the TRUE source of our 2A and other rights. FROM the Declaration of Independence ,it states = We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life(self-defense),liberty (any gun you want) and the pursuit of happiness(to be left along from government control of your rights)!The 2A is the LAW of the land , there can be NO higher laws, to do so is a CRIME etc…(to keep and bear arms by the people ) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Even in the Bible JESUS told the 12 sell your coat and buy a SWORD! ( for self-defense) the highest of all laws is God! they may not like it… but that’s the facts.
Wait a minute, this whole story must be a fake: Private ownership of guns is outlawed in NYC, and only politicians, big contributors to the politicians, publishers of the NYT, judges and rich lawyers can carry concealed guns. So I don’t understand how the perp could have been carrying a “silver .38-caliber revolver”. Unless the perp is the publisher of the NYT, or one of Bloomberg’s armed bodyguards?
Yeah, that must be it, because we all KNOW that strict gun bans like New York’s and Chicago’s are very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals!
Oh, you guys! If you think that Waka Flocka is hip-hop, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is a difference between hip-hop and rap. There is a difference between responsible rap artists and irresponsible rap artists. That very same parallel exists amongst firearm owners. Every time I read articles about hip-hop, rap, or rappers and the replies that follow, I am stunned by the generalizations and stereotypes that lace the discussions. This is not unlike the misinformed opinions you see in the MSM about guns and gun owners. As hip-hop pioneers Public Enemy once suggested… Don’t Believe the Hype!
Become informed! Learn a little more about that which you speak and be careful not to become just like the hypocrites that you so fiercely lobby against.
This is one of the things the gay community is going to have to face.
They feel “safe” and “accepted” in known gay areas like this or the Castro District in SF but there’s a known problem: just as fishermen or hunters will travel long distances to get to a favored spot, gay-bashing bigots will come to a place like that to carry out violent attacks from up to hundreds of miles away. This has been very well documented. Worse, once they go back home catching ’em is difficult because they’re not know to anybody near the shooting/beating scene – they’re not from around there.
What the gays see as “havens” are seriously not any such thing.
Reminds one of gun-free zone.
As many have said before, if you could magically remove the guns from the “gun violence” problem and you’ll still have a violence problem. Take the violence out and you don’t have a problem.
Pipe dream, violence has been around since we could walk upright.
Clarity.
Robert,
Sorry but you overstated gun homicides from your own data link. The correct # of 2011 gun homicides is 11k, not 20k.
“Police sources said the unidentified shooter fired off up to 10 shots at the Q6 bus”
Naw, that can’t be right. They have a 7 round mag cap law in NY. The police must have gotten their facts mixed up. How many times will we make this same comment after a shooting in NY.
Don’t forget that there were 5 gun homicides in Chicago last weekend, and at least two of the 14 wounded may not survive. The article strongly suggests that most of these are gang related hits.
I hate to be the one to point it out but…
Your jumping to the gang problem before having any definitive knowledge of that link reminds me a bit of that leap the gun control advocates took after another recent senseless (is there any other kind?) act of violence, with them blaming someone on our side of the argument before any investigatory work had been done. We called them on that egregious leap. We shouldn’t be guilty of making similar leaps without the facts.
You may very well be proven correct in your assessment but what if it was something else? We don’t want to be the one’s with the log in our eye, do we?
Well done. Thank you.
The NRA: The dull end of the spear since 1934.
This article is a little long winded. I have encountered this argument before, and I simply reply; The Gov’t does not restrict you access to the word “Fire”, nor do they punish you for using it lawfully. You are considered responsible enough to have it in your vocabulary, should the need arise to use it. Why should a firearm be any different.
This story is a hoax.
Perazzi USA has inform us that the Perazzi family ONLY travels to the US for the Shot Show and the Grand American.
This was also confirmed today by Ray Stafford who was at that gun show in Denver. Ray reitterated the above info and even stated that there isn’t even a grandson old enough to even travel alone to the US let alone be responsible for any shotgun.
Ray Stafford is a long time Perazzi dealer.
Since the shortage started, I have had a few friends purchase pistols for the first time. While hollow points seem to be fairly easy to find, range ammo has been scarce in Austin. I have gladly dipped into my small supply to take them to the range and help them at least get familiar with their guns. I have another friend that will be taking her Concealed Carry exam this weekend. She hasn’t shot in years. I’ll be spotting her the ammo for the test and taking her to the range on Wednesday to run through a practice test. We’ll be at Lone Star Range in Lockhart around 10 if anyone wants to join us.
The only thing that I have been asking in return for the ammo is for friends to keep their eyes open at places like WalMart and Academy and call me if they see something. I usually ask them to buy whatever they can and then I buy it off of them.
I have tried my best to stick with my policy of providing ammo for any first-time shooter that will go to the range with me, but it is getting harder to do.