12 thoughts on “Let’s “Regulate” 1st Amendment?! What?! Exactly!”

1. Valid rational thought Rob. Some will tell you the 1st amendment doesn’t kill but the 2nd does. I would take your argument one step further. Cell phones. Cell phones are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. Some countries require a passport or Govt ID to get a cell or a SIM card. Cell phone are used in crime or to facilitate crime. Cell phones have been used as remote detonators. Drivers using cell phones are just as dangerous if not more so than drunk drivers.
   So let’s crack down on cell phones. The left has no viable argument against this. Cell phones KILL!! i expect that legally owned, unregistered, no background check, cell phones can be proven to have killed more people and more children than highly regulated firearms. Schools should be cell phone free zones. Cell phones should be banned on airplanes unless locked in a hard case and stored in a checked bag,

   Reply

2. Hey Rob are you a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association? As A fellow 2A supporter from IL They seem like they are dedicated to no-compromise gun rights.

   Reply

   • Tyler,
     Illinois has always had 2nd amendment problems, dating back to the War of 1812, against England. Canada invaded, through Illinois and they couldn’t defend themselves. Washington D.C had the same issue. The Navy Yard’s shipmen stayed & lost to invading English forces/Marines. Even today, the state of Illinois is home to the U.S Navy’s RTC Bootcamp & the sailors didn’t even qualify, with live ammo. A 25 yd dartboard laser & that’s it. They didn’t even pull back the charging handle. Even if, every bootcamp division is activated, they have no live training. That would be like 11 division or 1,100 sailors & that’s it. Sailors can’t beat Army soldiers, especially not Canada’s Army. The only SEAL’s there are on temp. assignment & it is like -10. So, you can forget about that. The point is that, Illinois already lost to Canada & England because of the arms laws & would loose again because of it. That’s why, I don’t agree, with Illinois or the Navy’s training program. For all practical purposes, Illinois is weak – let ’em because Illinois is going no-where because of it.

     Reply

3. What about cars a lot of these politicians are probably driving around in Mercedes-Benz those are very fast cars some do a hundred and sixty a hundred and seventy miles an hour when really you only need to go 55 all car should be regulated 55 miles an hour a vehicle traveling at fast speeds could be dangerous they should be made to turn in all fast moving luxury vehicles

   Reply

   • I don’t agree. I took astronomy, aviation, ect. Increases in technologies needed for planetary surface speeds are relational to speeds needed for space travel. We need to get there, as fast as we can. In spacetime, going faster, slows down your body’s aging process & that also applies to people driving cars on Earth. The faster you go, the better, especially considering that, people spend a-lot of time in cars. 55 mph is obsolete; there is no living in the past, only the present & future. 80-85-90 mph are the new speeds, here in Texas & people push, through 100 mph. That would cut down the Mars Mission from 4-6 months, down to only 2-3 months. There is no waiting period in travel, always try to achieve light speed. “That is the speed limit of our known universe.”

     That is never going to happen. We allow people to drive 100 mph, by vote – no tickets. If you can’t keep up, drive right or get off the road. If one doesn’t like it, move to Illinois or California.

     Reply

4. Well said! No other response is necessary.

   Reply

5. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st and all other rights we have. It is there to insure that we are able to stand up and protect ourselves against anyone infringing on our rights. So tell me if they take our 2nd amendment rights how long will it be before they start coming after our other ones

   Reply

6. Thank you for that cheers brother! Great analogy.

   Reply

7. Heath makes a good connection.

   In modernity, which is our current time, the current government teaching & claim is that, amendments were meant to be changed; atleast open to changes, in the later future. Do I believe that is ultimately true? No. I believe the amendments have been manipulated & twisted, for gains & losses, of sides that rule & those that are ruled. Freedom of speech simply challenges & voices, against an unjust government and the right for people to bear arms defends the nation. I think, in its simplicity, that is all the amendments were really meant to be. The issue that comes into play is, when a person or group of people attains power. They don’t want to turn it over or lose it. The individual will try to retain his/her position, for as long as possible – it includes changing laws for personal benefits.

   Reply

8. Well put sir, to any rational individual watching that video would put it in perspective perfectly. Unfortunately I have found most that wish to change 2nd amendment extremely irrational.

   Reply

9. Thank’s. It’s just by interpretation, some like changing it, others stick to it. I’m from another country, I too was in the military. While here, I use the U.S’ laws, whatever “but” when I leave, I do what I want & they don’t mean anything to me anymore. So, I’m not bound, stuck in the U.S. I can leave, whenever I want & it will not mean anything to me, no longer exist. In my other world, none of this exists. That’s why, I don’t really care what California or Illinois does; I’ll just screw ’em on the the other side of the world because they are fake anyway.

   Reply

10. Hec, in other countries, I holster two pistols, on each hip, spray paint a $500 jeep in desert camo, go to the jungle, with a bottle of rum & laugh my but off. I drive, without a license or insurance. Someone gets in your way, hit ’em, with a jeep. See, it doesn’t matter.

    Reply