What if we treated the right to free speech the same way we treated the right to keep and bear arms?
We know that the First Amendment's right to free speech/press were not made to cover the endless, non-stop stream of content across the various spectrums of media or the diverse opinions coming from every person in the country. It was intended so that the colonists could respectfully disagree with King George III. Reasonable, common sense measures need to be taken to safeguard the minds and emotional well-being of the American public, especially for our children.
Here at Nevada Carry, we believe the following steps should be taken:
Universal background checks: we need to ensure that everyone buying, reading, or receiving as a loan any sort of publication is legally able to do so. Do you want children buying 'Playboy' or a non-soldier reading books on war?
Full registration: the government needs to know who is reading/listening/watching what in order to keep us safe. But fear not! Even with registration, you can still read/listen to/watch whatever you want. Just like it's important that a parent pay attention to the media their child consumes, the government has a very real need to make sure that deviants and potential criminals and terrorists aren't reading the wrong things.
Testing: before you buy a book or periodical, there needs to be in-store testing to make sure you can read.
Book Fair loophole: did you know that there are tons of book fairs every year, even in schools? People can even buy books and videos through the mail, with no sales clerk interaction! What if a child is buying something too old for them? We have to end the book fair and internet loophole.
Capacity limitation: all books and magazines are limited to 10 pages and all videos/movies/TV shows are limited to 10 minutes or less, except for government, military, and police use. Standard capacity media is just too much; if you can't say it efficiently in a few words, it doesn't need to be said at all.
Banning certain features: the First Amendment was written in a time when things like YouTube, blogs, podcasts, the Internet, television, and radio simply didn't exist. The founders had no idea that mass media would spread to virtually everywhere a cell signal could be had. We had the first Amendment for nearly 230 years before we had YouTube; we'll survive. Most of the videos are just dumb stuff, trucks and guns, and cute cats anyway.
Restriction of 'offensive' materials: no one needs access to religious materials, such as the Bible or Koran, or potentially inflammatory literature, or satirical works, or pornography, or something that might hurt someone's feelings or scare somebody.
Silence the ignorant and mentally ill/disabled: why would we let someone who doesn't know what they are talking about or spewing non-sense/gossip/rumors and pollute our ears and minds? Dumb people cause a lot of trouble and no one wants to hear the crazy guy rambling on the corner.
Public speaking licenses: only those who have gone through elocution lessons, taken a speech class, have graduated from at least a four-year university and pass an FBI background check (to ensure they are not terrorists or inciting crimes) should be allowed to speak in public.
Safety: every work of fiction needs to have a disclaimer that it is not real and should not be imitated or taken as fact. Additionally, opinions need a disclaimer that they are simply the opinion of the speaker only, that the speaker has a valid "Right to Public Speech" permit, and that the viewer/reader/listener is free to form their own opinion. In homes with children, we also need pornography and adult-themed materials safes in every home and every computer and TV should be set with a content filter.
No free speech zones in schools: the children are impressionable and need to only learn and hear what is educationally approved for them. We also don't want students intimidated by potential offensive opinions of teachers, professors, and other students.
Free speech restraining orders: the police should be able to serve a restraining order against those who express 'dangerous', 'offensive', or 'unpopular' opinions, including those who make others feel uncomfortable, and take away any means they have to express that that opinion to society.
Now that nightmare is over, I remind you of this:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty darn unambiguous, I think.
So yes, what if we treated the Second Amendment the same way we treat the first?