Maybe it’s a natural result of X-Box providing the only interactive male role-model in a fatherless society?
And when the media goes berserk, we can ask why the Second Amendment doesn't deserve the same respect they demand for the First.
Funny I just realized that VDH is actually a strange squish-bug like parasite in the Conservative movement in the vein of the ever ‘smart’ but worthless ‘in actual defense of American Conservative culture’ Chas. Krauthammer. We need better thinkers and writers, no more of the Straussian faux-cons!
Well, we aren't talking about The Bill of Needs now are we?
This argument is frequently used, but is not really accurate.
I could indeed yell "Fire" in a crowded theater to my little heart's content, provided I was not somehow restrained, or until someone forced me to stop. I would certainly, and would expect to, be held accountable for the resulting pandemonium and any damages.
The only way I could be prevented from doing so would be to physically restrict my ability to do so, perhaps by gluing my lips shut.
But, what if there actually were a fire?
It is this prior restraint that the Statists want to enact upon lawful gun owners. They want to make sure that everyone cannot yell "fire", instead of holding folks accountable if they do so inappropriately.
Actually, you can, (and must), yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater,
if there is a fire in the theater.
The best first amendment argument is that the MSM is shouting Fire! in crowded schools by giving such elated, 24/7 coverage of the mass shootings in their lust for more gun control.
The first amendment infringement that would save the most live would be to curtail the mass media’s explotation of these mass murders.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/stop-school-shootings-hold-media.html