Quote of the Day
Considering much of the justification for restricting the Second Amendment comes down to preventing violence, this distinction is strange.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s protections has expanded over the years. It’s almost impossible for a public person to win a defamation or libel lawsuit, since the Supreme Court ruled in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the plaintiff must prove “actual malice,” which means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
Commercial speech used to be unprotected. Now, it receives intermediate scrutiny after SCOTUS’ 1980 ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.
Hate speech, flag burning, violent video games and lies about military honors are all protected now.If the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to firearms regulations, they would fail due to the lack of historical tradition. Requiring a minimum age of 21 to own a firearm would fail, since 18–20-year-olds served in the 1791 militia. Red flag laws would fail, since there are no pre-deprivation hearings. Magazine limits would fail since there is no founding-era analogue. Many felons are nonviolent, so laws prohibiting their possession would fail as too broad.
Judges justify the hypocrisy by pointing to the need to prevent gun deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 44,400 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. last year. However, when compared to a similar country, England (and Wales), which bans firearms, the U.S. has lower overall violent crime rates. This reveals that judges are making decisions based on emotion, not relying on a purely constitutional analysis.
Rachel Alexander
November 19, 2025
Courts Broadly Interpret the 1st Amendment, While Hypocritically Limiting the 2nd Amendment – FourG
There are other options. It is possible, even probable, that it is not an emotional basis for the decisions. It could be there are “just” different principles at work. A disarmed population is a compliant population. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, etc.
“It could be there are “just” different principles at work.”
The principle at work is that judges, prosecutors, legislators, and regulators cannot tolerate private citizens acting on their own behalf, outside the State.
Any belief, instrument, or justification that encourages action without the permission of the State undermines the State.
There’s a word in our discourse that captures that entire idea, on the tip of my tongue . . .
Such people might speak in an analogy about sticks being easily broken individually, but when aligned together in a bundle and tied tightly…
That’s not just the courts. Societies in general are brainwashed into this way of governing. We are emotionally driven creatures to begin with. So it isn’t that hard a thing to accomplish.
(And one of the biggest reasons women were not allowed in government or to vote by our forefathers.)
But alas, we are where we are. And many things are going to have to fail in order for humanity to return to some semblance of reason.
Starting with communism and all its many forms.
Disarmament is the goal and true evil driving all of it.
Their problem is and always will be that there is not that many elites and enforcers. And if one can shoot/fight back, others will follow.
And that cannot be abided.
It’s also the reason our forefather drew a line in the sand at firearms confiscation and shot those that stepped over it.
Then told us to do the same if we were to have any freedoms at all.
A vast number of those who go into politics seek gun control for the same reason they enter politics. They seek to control others. It’s an inherent character flaw for many people. Being in office AND banning guns facilitates their ability to control others. The fundamental fact is that the desire to hold office should be a de facto disqualification for holding office.