From the Moms Demand Victims Action Twitter feed:
Twitter is a weird communication tool. My guess is that the lack of character length makes for messages that need to be simple and sometimes the Truth escapes without them realizing it.
Now, you can take the above tweet in one of two fashions: Rank stupidity and lack of knowledge about how well protected is the First Amendment and the “danger” that could be treating the Second Amendment the same (Just think Public Armories, like a Public Library) or treating the First Amendment the same way the Second is treated which I would not put pass them and the rest of the Freedom-Thwarting idiots.
Of course there is the third option of being both stupid and dangerous to our Freedoms and that is what we should expect as it is the most dangerous.
If the 2A was only as restricted as the 1A few of us would be complaining at all.
Yeah they completely don’t understand current 1st Amendment jurisprudence. Really, under Brandenburg test, only imminent, lawless threats, and slander aren’t protected. Everything else is. So if that was applied to the 2nd, only using a gun in a crime would be illegal. Everything else would be protected. I don’t think they want that.
“The purpose of the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you’re trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.”
— anti-gun lawyer Michael Kinsley – Washington Post, January 8, 1990