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?
Bloomberg's background check initiative was certified, despite not being in compliance with the law. Secretary of State Ross Miller should be ashamed of himself for fraudulently certifying it. Let's hope that it can be defeated in court.
The Reno Gazette-Journal presented a very common sense article on background checks. As the informed reader knows, background checks are ineffective and easily avoided by criminals. Expanding them to private sales of firearms is merely a feel-good measure that does nothing except restrict the rights of the law-abiding. It's just the first step to slowly roll back American's 2nd Amendment rights.
Some salient quotes:
"This all sounds very common sense but when the plan meets real-world situations, it falls apart. For supporters to justify passage of the initiative, they need to show it would decrease the tragedies seen too often in the news.
Consider three of the biggest mass shootings in recent memory, none of which would have been avoided if this proposal had been in effect in the states where they happened."
"Nevada’s background check proposal may give the feeling that at least something is being done, but it is not a good use of time and money if the goal is to decrease gun violence."
Thursday night (12/4/14), a man walked into a Red Lobster near the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas with a gun and attempted to rob the restaurant. We don't know why he wanted to rob a Red Lobster; there probably are much better targets out there and live lobsters stuffed into your pants is something that just isn't going to work out well.
Now and intrepid citizen decided this would be a good time to fire a warning shot.
"However, a person in the restaurant pulled out a gun and fired off a warning shot in the air. Police said that caused the robber to take off. " Article here.
Not exactly brilliant. If you have cause to fire a warning shot, you likely have cause to shoot the threat. Warning shots can go wild and injure an innocent person. Not to mention hearing damage and scaring the heck out of other people who don't know what's going on.
This article details Bloomberg's plans in Nevada and across the country to steal our right to bear arms, one law at a time, by duping ignorant voters and spending money to spread his lies and propaganda.
McDonalds released an announcement on carrying firearms. Basically, they are relying on you to be an adult and follow the law in your area. Corporate stores do not have a policy banning open/concealed carry and individual franchisees may make their own policies (private property and all). Other restaurants ought to take note (I'm taking to you Panera Bread and Raising Cane's).