[LearsFool]

The First Amendment contains no guarantee of a right to film a speech.

But see, this is the problem with the Bill of Rights, and why so many good and wise men opposed it.

The Constitution carved out an “area of authority” from within the people’s freedom. But the Bill of Rights, by its very existence and in spite of the Ninth and Tenth, carves out instead an “area of freedom” from within the government’s authority - the precise opposite of the “republic of freedom” which the Constitution was intended to provide.

This fellow needs no constitutional amendment. He is a free man, in a free country. An amendment protecting his “right to film” serves only to abridge - by its very existence and specificity - his other, not-so-protected rights.

Just tell those black thugs to “buzz off or I’m calling the cops!”

[raybbr]

This fellow needs no constitutional amendment. He is a free man, in a free country. An amendment protecting his “right to film” serves only to abridge - by its very existence and specificity - his other, not-so-protected rights.

I agree totally. (why couldn't you have said that in the first place?)

Just tell those black thugs to “buzz off or I’m calling the cops!”

Right again. Or maybe in more specific terms.