Posted on 03/01/2013 10:59:58 AM PST by Starman417
President Obama and his progressive allies have recently told us that even the most draconian of gun laws must be passed because “If we save even one life from gun violence, it’s worth it.” While that’s an amazingly ignorant, infantile, and even downright silly statement, it does neatly sum up a nanny-state philosophy that is fueling a nationwide assault on the second “shall not be infringed” amendment as well as law-abiding gun owners across the nation.
By such simplistic liberal logic, the printed word is far too dangerous to be allowed outside the hands of a privileged few or the auspices of government control. In fact, entire cultures, nations, and peoples have been persuaded to commit atrocious acts of aggression and even genocide by simple concepts spread by the printed word and other mass message distribution devices. If you are going to start banning guns, then you better start banning ideas and the ways they are disseminated. And remember, if only one life is saved by such extreme actions “at least we did something.”
Simple words printed on pieces of paper have indeed shown themselves to be far more dangerous than the mere possession of firearms by a certain percentage of a population.
The advent of the printing press, and the technologies that evolved from it, facilitated the widespread distribution of controversial, violent, and often hateful concepts and ideologies. In the last century alone approximately 170 million people were killed because of the ideas outlined within just three books.* The contents of Mao’s “Little Red Book,” Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto have been responsible for more repression, massacres, genocide, and cataclysmic warfare than all other theologies and ideologies from the beginning of time until now.
In addition to the poison spread by the likes of Marx and Hitler, many other books and writings have also contributed to the deaths of countless human beings and to the rise of myriads of twisted cults and movements. The plethora of gullible, uneducated, mentally ill, opportunistic, and extremists among the general population has shown us that average citizens cannot be trusted with the often dangerous ideas that a book can provide without strict government regulation and control.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Been some years since you made a comment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:starman417/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Looks a lot like you are just here to promote a particular blog.
Have you thoughts on that?
Finally...common-sense word control.
That is OK. The VAWA that is being rammed through Congress is going to place a big hit on the First Amendment.
“It’s important that we have a *national dialogue* about “speech and religion control.” /sarc
And a free press and the right of assembly are just outdated, 18th Century concepts. The founding fathers probably meant the right of the government to have a free press and assemble.
Definitely time to put that brand new Violence Against Women Act to use and censor all TV shows and movies that portray women being raped and/or murdered. Perhaps no pictures of anyone shooting a gun should be allowed in the media, just as schools are outlawing pictures of guns.
The First Amendment needs to be adapted for modern times since it was authored when people were scribbling with quill pens and not many people could read. We really should pass restrictions now.
?
Except in the womb! Let's not talk about that ...
10 pages and 1 humblegunner admonition should be the limit placed on all books.
The First Amendment does not give politicians or media the right to lie; if/when found lying they lose their right to speak for a period of time. They must register their proposed comments with a government agency who will decide if they are permitted to make them.
And since Islam is rapidly catching up to them, ban the Qur'an!
No newspaper or magazine needs to contain more than seven articles.
Haha....so true
It is hard to tell if you are in the spirit of sarcasm of this article, or not - because so many FReepers actually do think that the First Amendment carries an obligation with it. How can a limitation on government power create an obligation?? It cannot.
The only way the abortion business is allowed to thrive is the government’s guns are turned on us. If the government’s jack booted thugs who protect the baby killers will put away those guns, that crowd’s out of business NOW!
Books don’t kill people: Ideas do. Time to limit them.
All gun control laws violate the 2nd amend.
Simply put, it illustrates how the same kind of rules applied to a different amendment would be "over the top". Requiring an application (an illegal infringement in itself) and denying it because the applicant can't "show a need" (the carry permit standard in New Jersey) denies almost all our non-connected citizens the right to armed self-defense outside the home.
So, propose to limit the first amendment the same way then when they howl about thier rights ask "why one but not the other?" It won't affect the hard core hoplophobes, but it may awaken the well meaning misinformed masses.
Don’t worry about the self appointed internet posting police wannabe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.