If there is a free speech zone, that must mean the
rest is a speech free zone.
Yes, you’re free, but do it over THERE!
As she alluded to in this writing, the Jews were allowed to exist (at first) in Nazi Germany - just within the proper “zones”.
And in the United States during the “civil rights era” Blacks were allowed to do all the same things as whites - just within the proper “zones”.
The country will never be taken over in one fell swoop. It will always be half-done first through the use of “zones”.
I worry about this dynamic every single day.
The courts upheld the decision because technically, they aren’t telling you that can’t express yourself.. They are telling you that you can’t express yourself _right there_. Same with permits.
They haven’t removed your right to free speech - they just added some extra steps.
When it comes to gun control, the argument is same. If they were to make all guns illegal - except one single shot blackpowder model, and then told you that you could only shoot it at a single approved range in each state - They aren’t technically taking away guns, and they aren’t technically removing your right to shoot one. They are putting up barriers and adding extra steps.
This is how they have gotten away with what they have in the way of gun control to date : They aren’t telling people they can’t own and carry a weapon. They are making it damned near impossible to do it. Which is close, but not exactly, banning. You can own and carry a firearm in NYC for instance - But it’s so damned tough to do so that it’s “Basically” not going to happen.
They can, and will do this for the entire nation.
What we need to press on with is the notion of “Shall not be infringed” then we need to update the term “infringed”. Our second amendment has already been “Infringed” and we never made a stink about it. Since the 30’s full-auto ban - it’s been infringed.
According to the constitution, if I can afford a SAM site - I have every RIGHT to buy and deploy one. That’s not a privilege, it’s my RIGHT.