Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?

Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.

Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:

Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech  prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.

The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.

Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

  1. But that *is* the general view of the 1st amendment. Well, not stated quite as clearly as you did, but still.
    What’s the famous quote “there is no right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”?
    Neil Smith had the correct reply to that: “Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong. You have an absolute and perfect right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater — and to accept responsibility for the consequences.”

    • There is no ban on felons reading books or being deprived of free speech. Nor is there a ban “dangerous and unusual” books.

      I certainly didn’t make it as clear to others as it was in my mind but the analog would be once you had convicted of a crime of incitement to riot, slander, or libel you would be forevermore deprived of the right to free speech. Once you used religious justification for a crime of violence you would be deprived of your right to freedom of religion.

      This leads to a slippery slope which the progressives are already hinting at. Being critical of their policies, such as Obamacare, is claimed to be the reason for it’s failure. If the “right wing nut jobs” would just cooperate the pixie dust would be able to work its magic. Therefore the RWNJs must be silenced. Their speech is “dangerous and unusual”.

    • I love it when lefties use that quote. He was referring to people who criticized the draft.

  2. I didn’t celebrate that quote.
    I just accepted that limitation as the cost of winning THIS battle.

    I love substituting the 1st in there.

  3. It was such a huge improvement over the previous state of affairs that I celebrated it. But in absolute terms it’s not that great. We still have a long way to go.

    It’s like celebrating the courts saying homosexuals can be put in jail for up to a year–when previously it was a mandatory death sentence.

  4. I’ve heard a story or two that Alito had that section put in as a C.Y.A. Clause for Future Cases. Not sure if it’s true since I don’t have a copy of the Full Ruling in front of me, but I believe it.

  5. How does one person or even society claim the authority to limit another’s rights ? For a nation founded on freedom and liberty any limiting of rights is unacceptable.

Comments are closed.