THE GUN DEBATE: Basic human rights held hostage by liberals

By Michael Bishop
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/16/08

"Today, as I write, House Bill 89 rests on Gov. Sonny Perdue's desk awaiting his signature.

It will permit those with concealed-carry permits to take their firearms onto public transportation, into state parks and into restaurants that earn more than 50 percent of their income from food. Perdue should veto this bill. And he shouldn't dilly-dally doing it.

The gun issue nowadays isn't ultimately a Republican vs. Democrat or a conservative vs. liberal issue, but simply one of public safety. And if our laws aren't doing the job, please don't believe for a minute that putting more guns in more hands in more places will solve the problem.

Indeed, opponents of this bill feel about allowing guns everywhere the way most people feel about nuclear proliferation. That is, the more bombs and/or guns, the more likely that, eventually, somebody will discover a reason —- good, bad or bonkers —- to use them.

Americans have allowed the idiocy of gun worship to become institutionalized. If I spy a villain in this, it's gun-rights advocates who refuse to acknowledge that even constitutional amendments have implied built-in constraints or restraints, including the most hallowed of all, the First Amendment, famously in the caveat that "free speech" doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium."

You know that a loon has intellectually surrendered whenever the "Shouting fire in a crowded (insert theater or lobby or auditorium here)" is employed.

Listen, oh liberal lice and learn up; THERE IS NO PRIOR RESTRAINT TO DOING SO.

That's what the 1st Amendment is all about, you see. Permitting a degree of freedom, and IF that freedom is abused, then punishing a guilty party. The Crowded Theater scenario does not work when discussing firearms, never has, never will. No one has ever been asked to forfeit their vocal cords, or consent to being gagged before catching a flick. You may even enter said lobby with enough matches to start the mother of all conflagrations, because...take a deep breath now, loonies...having the ABILITY to commit a criminal act is not the same as COMMITTING a criminal act. We could put an end to rape tomorrow by forcing all men to submit to castration. But then they'd turn into liberals, spend a fortune on soft, fuzzy sweaters, and agree that they deserved the worst "just in case".

So for chrissake please...

Find another idiotic drum to beat.

Pretty please?

You simply make it too easy.