2nd Amendment isn't absolute: Allow reasonable gun-control laws
"But there is no need for the court to choose, because even if the Second Amendment is regarded as creating an individual right to own firearms, it is surely not an absolute liberty. It seems obvious that the government can keep people from having particularly dangerous weapons, such as assault rifles, and keep those with criminal records from having guns. Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation."
You know, I kind of agree with you, Professor Chemerinski. so how's about we try something? Words should have consequences this is true, but like what you'd have the government do with firearms, I'd suggest we give a try with words as well.
Before you print one more word, one syllable, one letter even, I'd like you to send it to me first. This way I could have a look to see if its dangerous stuff. If in my opinion it is, then to publish those words we'd have to set up some sort of licensing procedure, and in your world any license is a good license so I suppose you'll go along with this without much of a fuss. If everything meets with my approval, you get the license to exercise your 1st Amendment rights and this is only fair because it isn't an absolute right, now is it?
Throughout history, madmen and dictators have harmed far more people with words than any of my guns have, just look at Hitler's order to KILL THE JEWS as proof. So lets get off the pot here and begin a permit procedure for these dangerous weapons. Still won't allow you to say any damned thing you well please, so have a care, Professor. Muck it up and just like felons and guns, you lose the right to ever speak in public or write anything ever again.
Feeling any different about all of this prior-restraint stuff, Professor?
Thanks to The War on Guns.