Yea...it's JUST like that. NOT.
Back up your opinion.
You obviously do not respect firearm ownership as a right. It's not like you have that right to being with. However, there are plenty of people who show as little respect for the rest of the BOR and would impose restrictions on the Internet in a heartbeat. Can they in a practical sense, no. At least not today in the US. But throughout the world they can and do. But that is not the point I was making. I was offering a parallel comparison for those who only respect some parts of the BOR, and not others, as to why I might care about the issue.
But, the comparison is probably closer than you would like to admit.
Exercisers of free speech who have a national and international audience:
NAMBLA - recruitment and propaganda. People on this board have called for it's banning since it supports pedophilia.
Hate Groups - recruitment and propaganda (the turner diaries is linked to the Oklahoma City bombings and a range of hate attacks)
Pornography - morality, feminist backlash. Think of the Children! Even if you like to glance at the latest playboy there is extreme content of all spectrums to be shocked and outraged over. In fact, lets restrict all porn (if you can) since some small terrible percentage involves children or sexual slavery.
Terrorism - recruitment and propaganda. Wheres that Daniel Pearl video, or Osama's latest video?
In fact, most of the same arguments can be made for 1st Amendment restrictions as the 2nd Amendment. I can clearly imagine the framers anticipated the advancement of personal weapons. For that matter improved printing presses. But 24 hour TV news and the Internet? Why are sensible controls off the table with this right, but not the others?
Historically, the pen is mightier than the Sword -- without propaganda it's a lot harder to have aggressor world wars and genocides. Do the Nazis' rise to power? Do you think of your Jewish neighbors as nothing better than sewer rats (we've all seen the film. Gobbles was hardly subtle, but it played to the audience). It's a lot easier to go into Iraq if the press corps doesn't ask the tough questions and instead sucks up for the best embed slot in the big show. It's a lot easier to have the Spanish American War because Randolph Hearst decided it should be so and used his media empire to make it happen. Most of the "glory" killings we see, like the Virginia Tech shootings, might use a gun in the crime, but it is the international media attention that drives the crime.
Free speech is a powerful thing, but a tremendously dangerous thing. My private citizen rifle will never kill 20 million people, but someday it may help stop a tyrant that would.
Today, the internet represents a bypass to state controlled (or in the "free world" state compliant corporate) media. There is plenty of motivation to control the Web and plenty of buttons to push to try and make that happen among both politicians and even the corporate media itself. Fortunately, for now, the corporate media is forced to use its 1st amendment power to protect what has been established firmly as a sacred cow. But, perhaps the next formal corporate Internet will bypass the anarchy we have on the Web today.
Charon
