I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from an anti-rights activist; “There are ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ on all rights…” as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s been a lot. As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.
The main argument the anti uses is the old, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void. QED).
Oh please! Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title “free speech”?
It is a malicious fraud to yell “Fire!” if there is no fire.
The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as “free speech” any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms. It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed”.
We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least. “Keeping and bearing” arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms. Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime. Can you say, “Duh”? Everyone together now; “Derrrrrr!”
Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) “Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don’t see YOU opposing with THOSE” argument to get any traction whatsoever?