Free speech trumps firearms

Many singled out Sarah Palin's now-infamous "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" tweet and her 'Crosshairs' campaign map, which included Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district, as a sign that some politicians have gone too far in stoking vitriol against their political opponents.
============================
Yes, many singled out Palin as the inciter of a massacre. This is exactly the kind of speech that is illegal and preceeds the 1st amendment. It's called libel, slander, and defamation laws. That kind of speech is illegal and is criminal. Not all speech is equal. Equating a public figure, with acutal malicious intent (not knowing the facts but stating it anyway) and libelous printing that Palin was responsible or implying she is responsible is not covered under free speech. It is a crime, and rightfully so.
How about those laws, Mr. Silverman?

Silverman states:

"For me, the First Amendment right to free speech is a lot more equal than the Second Amendment right to bear arms."

And I am of the opinion that without the 2nd Amendment, the 1st might as well be written on toilet paper. But you won't see me make clownish arguments disparaging the 1st Amendment.

"This brings me to the Second Amendment, which others consider more of a right than I do. I haven't owned a gun since I was ten years old, and then only a water pistol. I also don't have any friends who own guns (to my knowledge)."

I know people who don't read books or newspapers. Does that mean that the 1st Amendment has little value?

"In my poor state of South Carolina, struggling to fund public education and Medicaid, gun-happy legislators passed a law creating an annual tax-free holiday specifically for gun purchases."

At best a non-sequitur.

"I think the easy ability for Americans to buy and carry guns reaps what it sows."

What is your factual basis for this claim? Do you dispute the contrary findings of researchers like Lott and Kleck?

"Why is anyone surprised that mentally ill and angry people use guns to kill others?"

I'm sorry--I didn't realize that anyone would find this surprising. Nor that they do it with cars, knives, swords, hammers, baseball bats, poison, and with their bare hands.

"Between 1994 and 2004, we had a ban on assault weapons..."

Incorrect. The ban on assault weapons pre-dated the 1994 legislation and continues to this day. The legislation to which you refer outlawed certain SEMI-automatic weapons that RESEMBLED assault weapons--hence the reference to it as the "ugly gun" law. Pure political grandstanding.

"...which at least would have made it illegal and difficult to obtain the kind of extended clips that allowed Loughner to fire so many shots."

Maybe. Here in California, we've had a law for years banning magazines in excess of 10 rounds. What do you imagine has been the effect, other than giving dreamers that warm, fuzzy feeling that they've "done something"?

"This ban was lifted because of three powerful letters--NRA."

Those spineless quislings? "America's largest gun-CONTROL organization"?

"I think we have such unrestricted gun laws for reasons similar to not yet having normal relations with Cuba."

I'm pretty sure that you mean "unrestrictive," but you're correct that the Cuban embargo is sheer idiocy--it always has been. Maybe you should write about that--a subject you might know something about.

"Florida, a swing state, has a powerful minority of one-issue voters against normalization. Similarly, politicians fear the NRA's ability to mobilize the minority of one-issue voters who view any gun restrictions as unpatriotic and un-American."

Nonsense. Most 2nd Amendment supporters that I know cherish the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Read a bit of history and you may too.

Observations that guns such as Loughner used are just to kill people or that we don't need guns to hunt for food are completely beside the point of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms used for military purposes, i.e. to kill people. The founding fathers did not believe there should be standing army; they intended that citizens be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government as well as foreign invasion. That's why they reserved a right to "the people" to keep and bear arms.

However the Supreme court has said there can be reasonable restrictions on that right. It is already withheld from minors and those with felony convictions. It could certainly be withheld from the mentally unstable if a suitable test could be implemented. I don't know about Arizona's laws but if he was acting so crazy he was thrown out of community college and so crazy a Wal-Mart clerk wouldn't sell him ammunition, then I think the state could have had him committed at least to an evaluation.

Otherwise, if you want to restrict the ownership of guns the Constitution already provides for being amended.

It should be noted that, on matters unrelated to religion, atheists, agnostics, and humanists are all over the map, and there is no pope or guru or televangelist or Hocus Focus group that speaks for us. Herb's opinion is his own personal take on this issue, and it's as thotful as always, but it's not any kind of official policy statement by any freethinker organization.

Do people propose that we impose on ourselves or others speech so innocuous so that a psychotic could not misconstrue it to violence? That is a very low filter to pass and still claim that we have free speech in this country.

One also wonders how those who claim that current political speech triggers sociopathic behavior exactly how they know how psychotics react to such.

Inciting tragedy
There is a fine line between criticizing someone and inciting violence upon them. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, this line is now being examined and explored. The fact is that those who call for violence can be just as guilty as those who commit the violence. They may not have pulled the trigger, but in a way they did load the gun. Words can be weapons too.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/dEXj2j

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

The way to begin, I think, is to email your state and federal senators and representatives. I have often let them know my thoughts, I get unfailingly polite responses that don't acknowledge the contrary position I took with their positions, but they respond. It makes me think someone is noticing.

Write your elected representatives and let them know that you want more truth instead of distortions, you want cooperation rather than beligerance between the parties, you want government to work. I also intend to ask about a new look at a limit on assault weapons. They are not defensive weapons, they are offensive weapons. Maybe things have gone too far.

Maybe enough of us writing our elected officials and enough of us writing to our newspapers will begin to make a difference. It is for sure we can't make a difference with silence.

While I agree with Professor Silverman's support of both the first and second amendments--in both instances one must ask themselves...just because we CAN do something in a free society, SHOULD we? In the case of free speech, taken to the extreme, it is being used as a weapon. In the case of the right to bear arms, taken to the extreme, the arms are being used as killing machines. This is not the kind of country I want America to become.

I agree with Professor Silverman's sentiments regarding the first and second amendments. With regards to the second amendment, I wish that we could revisit and overturn this amendment. The days in which we need guns to hunt for our food are gone. Guns are used to kill people more often than to kill animals (I don't actually have the statistics to back this up, but I know that the numbers are certainly heading in this direction!). How does one fight the NRA lobby? How can we defuse the power of this minority?