Revived Anti-Gun Arguments
All the tired old anti-gun rhetoric is floating to the surface again ("Obama Must Shoot Down the Gun Lobby" column by E.J. Dionne Jr.).
How about a new perspective? How about a calm, objective reassessment of the First Amendment? After all, First Amendment freedoms have (damaged the) fabric of our democracy (more) than guns ever could.
For example, so many journalists have been discovered fabricating news that it is entirely reasonable to require that all journalists be officially licensed. Licenses could then be denied or revoked — en masse if necessary — in order to ensure the integrity of the media. …
And who could be opposed to the registration of computers? … And clearly, a system of background checks needs to be in place for anyone desiring to gain access to the Internet. Cyber-stalking, child pornography, malicious blogging — all could be reduced if some reasonable bureaucratic controls were introduced.
Nobody had a "need" for more than one television set. Period.
Let’s take a rational, common-sense approach to regulating the out-of-control beast we euphemize as "free speech." Surely the founding fathers had no inkling of the destructive power of the modern media.
All honest, decent people would have to agree that the gain in emotional security would be well worth giving up a few archaic rights. After all, the Constitution is a "living" document, isn’t it?
BOB CHRISTENSEN
Belen
ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Substitute First Amendment in Revived Anti-Gun Arguments
Satire is hard. Christensen is a frequent contributor to Letters to the Editor. This is one of his longer works. I would read his blog.
However, I believe he just suggested that there is no difference between speaking and shooting. I’m glad we don’t hang out together. After all, saying what I think is no different than taking a shot at him. And, as a gunnut, he’s got a god-given right to shoot in self-defense. Don’t mention my name if you tell him about this. peace, mjh
