- This topic has 39 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
We keep hearing the phrase “See Something, Say Something” with respect to alerting the police if you observe anything suspicious that might be a predictor of some violent or terrorist action. Yet, in multiple cases, we have seen cases where someone reports these crazies who post pictures of themselves on social media holding assault weapons, making vile threats against Blacks, Jews, other minorities, threatening local mosdos, etc. but the police shrug and say they cannot do anything because it is “protected speech” under the First Amendment. Is it time to consider some limited form of prior restraint on such speech and/or place the worst offenders in some form of preventive detention to protect public safety? Alternatively, would such expansion of governmental authority be invoked by a tyrannical government to suppress legitimate dissent?
The modification needed on the First Amendment is the elimination of special perfection for the press. The media should be treated no differently or preferentially than any 18 year old blogger or social media poster.
And if the press publishes national security secrets leaked to them by a traitor in the government, the government employee who illegal leaked the secrets along with the reporter and all his editors should all be prosecuted and imprisoned together.
Now that’s a First Amendment (partial) repeal worth supporting. Now let’s start lobbying Congress for this Constitutional Amendment.
The police can do a lot without violating that person’s rights.
Let’s ban the First amendment. Why should people with politically incorrect views be allowed a public forum. Why should the government tolerate those with backwards and obsolete views, such as capitalism or belief in a non-government supreme being?
If the get rid of the First amendment, it will be legal for hostile governments to ban Torah and Mitsvos. It places like New York, where quasi-socialists control the government, anything to the right of Karl Marx will earn you a trip to Rikers Island and Sing Sing. If you want to know what life without the First Amendment would be like, read about Berlin in the late 1930s or Moscow during most of the 20th century.
Joe,
You can’t do that! The liberals want everyone’s free speech to be taken away from them except those that agree with their views!
Exceptions to free speech already exist. You can’t walk into a bank and say “Your money or your life” and then claim it’s free speech.
Khmer Rouge
Why can’t they just repeal the 2nd amendment!??
Geordie613,
Because then it would look like your childhood country.
Without repealing the 2nd Amendment, they could make membership in a militia a requirement for gun ownership.
Geordie: I’m all for repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Geordie, because unlike in England we want to be able to protect ourselves from Muslim invaders.
Explain to us across the pond, Why on earth are guns so important for Americans?? It does not make sense to us.
Geordie,
Because we dont want to turn into Yeoville
Guns are important to politicians because of the NRA. They’re either accepting money to be pro-gun or fighting against the pro-gun types by being anti-gun. This has caused it to be a “conservative litmus test” in American politics.
To normal Americans who are pro-gun: usually their stance on guns is symbolic of general conservative views. An attack on gun rights is seen as being symbolic of overreaching government and rampant liberalism by them. Contrary to popular belief, hunting has almost nothing to do with it. The fraction of Americans who hunt is negligible, albeit more than in European countries of course.
Also, of course, it’s a big deal because of our Constitution. Most Americans have some degree of a sense that “once you start messing with the Constitution, nothing is safe.”
It doesn’t matter that the number of Americans who hunt is small. If taking away rights of a small group of people were okay, religious freedom wouldn’t be considered important at all.
It sounds so petty. How many mass murders will it take to change this crazy mindset?
It requires proof that taking away the guns will actually help. There isn’t really evidence to support that.
Also, how many car accidents will it take until you allow hunting again?
There ought to be a law outlawing all social media services, from treifbook to gab.
There is no need to limit the First Amendment because those “limits” are already there. The First Amendment does not state “Freedom of speech is absolute and must not be interfered with by anyone”, and no serious legal body interprets it as such. If people say that the First Amendment is in the way, they are just making excuses.
How could people shoot if you’ve taken away their ability to buy a gun?
It is petty, Geordie. In America, certain things are partisan issues, meaning if people feel like its an issue representative of their party, they’ll argue it to the grave. No matter how much or little sense it makes.
Hunting is not a religion, nor would it matter if it were. There are small religions that claim spirituality of doing drugs, but that doesn’t make them exempt from the law. Also, notice how Jewish conservatives act like you’re a big koifer if you don’t vote with the halachah on other issues, but with hunting it’s suddenly all “we can’t enforce the halachah on others.” It’s all just partisanship.
Hunting is not a religion, but that’s not the point. Why should religion be protected when so few people are religious?
Because being allowed to daven doesn’t kill people.
People will always be able to obtain lethal weapons.
The First amendment does NOT impact on gun control. First amendment deals with the freedoms of religions and expression and the prohibition of having an official “state” church. The only connection is that originally gun control under the British was designed to disarm those whose political, social and religious views were politically unacceptable, and both amendments were designed to make it impossible for the state to surpress those who it disagrees with. It is interesting the the Second amendment comes rights after the first, as if the highlight the connection.
Religion does sometimes lead people to kill.
Doctors also sometimes lead people to kill.
Doctors are also dangerous, but the difference is that you probably respect your neighbor’s doctor as much as your own, whereas you believe that all religions other than your own are false. If doctors were like religion in that everyone believed that everyone else’s was invalid, there would be a lot of problems.
It does not mean that you can’t respect someone else’s religion if yours is different. It is better if they have a religion respecting others than being an atheist where they have no one to be responsible to.
What about religious atheists?
RebYidd23 Thank G_d that we have protection for freedom of religion.
Some say freedom of religion but not freedom from religion being an atheist. The Pilgrims and Puritans were religious who escaped from England after their discrimination brought about this part of the First Amendment.Some atheists are religious.
RebYidd23, A religious atheist isn’t that an oxymoron?
Laskern
It should be an oxymoron, but since they are so devoted to their atheism, they treat it like a religion. I lived in a city of such people for a few years and, personalitywise, if they were into Yiddishkeit they would be the biggest machmirim (the unhealthy type of machmirim, that is)
No, some people are both atheist and Buddhist.
Geordie,
You’re right,
it doesn’t make sense and it shouldn’t.
Americans are too lost in talk shows.
Just as citizens or subjects other countries are lost in and influence by things that wouldn’t make sense to Americans and probably don’t make sense
Now rationally could try to explain it as Australian professor P Hogg on the difference between Canada vis a vis the US
Canada (At least prior to pot legalization ) ran according to what he calls Hoggs P.o.g
most important is peace ,order,and stable government while Americans have always relatively
been more concerned with legalisms Liberty and limits of freedom
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.