posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:23 PM
Sometimes one can realize that they have been wrong about something all along... be it an epiphany of realization or just admission of incapability of
reasonable resistance to public opinion. I may have been wrong about something... and that something is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear
It seems that maybe that right is not so absolute after all. Perhaps it is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Maybe it is OK to make firearms
prohibitively expensive and difficult to obtain and/or use effectively if needed. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate this whole concept of rights.
Of course, that brings up some other issues. There are several rights in the Constitution, and all carry the same legal weight as the 2nd Amendment.
So in fairness, since we're talking about reasonable restrictions, I think a few reasonable restrictions on other rights are needed.
We have the right to free speech... but I think a few reasonable restrictions are needed. We all know we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater,
but what about political speech? We all know people can be extremely offended by certain words and terms, so I propose a permitting process. Every
person must apply for and receive a permit for their speech, which must be renewed every year. The cost will be minor as long as one does not use
certain terms that the state will deem as offensive, but if one does disobey all manner of decorum and use those words, well, the permit cost will
increase drastically in order for those offended people to be reimbursed for their mental anguish. I definitely think that untruths in politics should
penalties fees, and that would include anything that happened to disagree with elected politicians. Of course, it will
need to be illegal to not hold a permit, since we don't want to go around cutting people's tongues out. Penalties could include exile to solitary
sound-proof confinement where any improper words would not be heard by anyone else.
I mean, that's reasonable, right? We don't want to be offending people, after all.
We have the right to freedom of the press... but again, a little common sense regulation only makes sense. For instance, I think that every news
network must be permitted and the cost of that permit should be dependent on the balance of the news stories presented. Too much pro-Trump news or too
little pro-Trump news would both result in much higher fees. Also, I think once a news reporter goes too far (too far being determined by the state of
course, who else?), they should have to submit their stories to the state for approval 30 days prior to publication.
That's reasonable. We still have freedom of the press. Print balanced stories and the permit cost will be minimal.
We have freedom of religion, but we need to be sure that isn't abused! After all, look at Westboro Baptist Church! Horrible! And those Jehovah's
Witnesses, coming to your door every other day talking about things you don't want to hear... and those holier-than-thou Christians complaining
because one Muslim believer killed a few of their fellow believers... that doesn't negate the religion of peace. So we have to ensure that the
freedom of religion is practiced in a reasonable fashion. Everyone who espouses a religious belief must get a permit for it, and that permit should
come with restrictions: oh, I don't know, things like no practicing any religious beliefs outside a properly permitted religious institution. Anyone
who does so should cause their institution to be liable for all damages, and that should include mental anguish from offense. Also, no religious
institutions should be allowed to be located near any school or other public assembly. As a matter of fact, maybe all religious institutions should be
located in a religious zone, to prevent anyone from violating these reasonable restrictions by happening to be in an area where we might need a
school. Hey, nothing wrong with making sure no one gets offended, right? People can still practice their religion at church (or synagogue or temple or
mosque). Hmmm... I wonder if the state would classify atheism as a religious belief?
We have the right to protest, and that right is sacred! So we have to ensure it is exercised properly... any protest must be permitted, and we can put
in a reasonable cooling off period (I say maybe 100 days?) as well as a cash bond at time of application to cover any damage to property, cleanup
costs, and extra required police protection to protect the protestors... say, a minimum cash bond of $1 million? That should cover it for small
protests, and the cost can go up based on the number of protestors. Of course, if someone applies for a permit for 1000 protestors and 10,000 show up,
only the first 1000 can attend. After all, the right is secure if the organizers just were honest about how big it was going to be.
I keep hearing there is a right to abortion. OK, I can accept this, as long as it is practiced subject to reasonable restrictions. Surely it is
reasonable to apply for a permit if one is pregnant and wants an abortion. I think it is reasonable to have a cooling off period of maybe 10
The right to vote is a major right, and certainly should be subject to reasonable restrictions. I think it's reasonable to make sure that one is
properly trained before being able to exercise such an important right. Maybe a required test on current events at the polls? We do need educated,
informed voters to prevent those who do not know how to wield the power of their vote from trying to do so and hurting someone (like a candidate). And
of course, photo ID is required to take a test... everyone knows that. We don't need to require ID to vote, just to take the test.
We can further make all these reasonable restrictions more reasonable by simply making all reasonable restrictions on rights a state's right issue.
We don't need the Federal government telling us what to do! This way, if someone doesn't think the restrictions in Ohio are reasonable, they can
just go protest the last Cincinnati city council decision in Reno Nevada... there will probably be less restrictions there. If the price to get a free
speech permit in California is too high, one can just move to Alabama. Their rights are still maintained. No one has the right for their rights to be
This way we can quit arguing about the 2nd Amendment... we can allow restrictions in ammunition, restrictions on who can own what, restrictions on how
one's right can be curtailed, even restrictions on how hard it is to use a gun for self-defense. Now, please... no one bring up the argument that the
right to own a firearm is something that can be practiced in private, while free speech, religion, voting, abortion, and protest must by definition be
a public exercise. After all, everyone will be subject to the same laws, and everyone will obviously follow those laws. No one is going to have an
illegal gun stored in a closet somewhere.
Or... we could always just allow people to freely exercise all their rights. But hey, that's just me tossing out some silliness... we NEED reasonable