1 Mar

Time To Register Books And Put Reasonable Restrictions On The 1st Amendment [Reader Post]

                                       

bannedbooks

President Obama and his progressive allies have recently told us that even the most draconian of gun laws must be passed because “If we save even one life from gun violence, it’s worth it.” While that’s an amazingly ignorant, infantile, and even downright silly statement, it does neatly sum up a nanny-state philosophy that is fueling a nationwide assault on the second “shall not be infringed” amendment as well as law-abiding gun owners across the nation.

By such simplistic liberal logic, the printed word is far too dangerous to be allowed outside the hands of a privileged few or the auspices of government control. In fact, entire cultures, nations, and peoples have been persuaded to commit atrocious acts of aggression and even genocide by simple concepts spread by the printed word and other mass message distribution devices. If you are going to start banning guns, then you better start banning ideas and the ways they are disseminated. And remember, if only one life is saved by such extreme actions “at least we did something.”

Simple words printed on pieces of paper have indeed shown themselves to be far more dangerous than the mere possession of firearms by a certain percentage of a population.

The advent of the printing press, and the technologies that evolved from it, facilitated the widespread distribution of controversial, violent, and often hateful concepts and ideologies. In the last century alone approximately 170 million people were killed because of the ideas outlined within just three books.* The contents of Mao’s “Little Red Book,” Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto have been responsible for more repression, massacres, genocide, and cataclysmic warfare than all other theologies and ideologies from the beginning of time until now.

In addition to the poison spread by the likes of Marx and Hitler, many other books and writings have also contributed to the deaths of countless human beings and to the rise of myriads of twisted cults and movements. The plethora of gullible, uneducated, mentally ill, opportunistic, and extremists among the general population has shown us that average citizens cannot be trusted with the often dangerous ideas that a book can provide without strict government regulation and control.

One has to wonder if the time has come to call for the registration of books deemed potentially dangerous and perhaps even the banning of exceptional powerful ones like the Bible that, when misused, could theoretically cause harm to innocents. Book buybacks, book-free zones, waiting periods, restrictions on internet book purchases, and requiring doctors to report to authorities the existence of such possibly mind-damaging materials in the home should all be explored. The safety of the public at large, no matter what the cost, must trump any outdated notions of personal liberty or constitutional “rights.”

Book registration and book-free zones make about as much sense as gun registration and gun-free zones. Both are equally ineffective deterrents when it comes to stopping psychopaths, violent criminals, and mass murderers. But such policies have shown themselves to be powerful weapons for governments to use against civilian populations. Especially when a government decides to start massively increasing its own power and control while at the same time restricting previously protected natural and constitutional rights. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation and that formula has been played out time after time in nation after nation. To pretend otherwise is mere historical ignorance or purposeful misdirection.

For, in the end, if it’s truly just about “saving lives” with no consideration for liberty and individual rights then you might as well start by banning books as well as guns. For the 1st and 2nd amendments go hand in hand. The contents of each are equally potentially dangerous, and at the same time equally precious and important. And each relies upon the other for its existence in a truly free society. Such was the design incorporated into the foundation of our nation by the Founding Fathers.

It is absolutely no business of the government what constitutionally protected rights a citizen chooses to engage in. That’s part of the beauty of being a free and sovereign citizen in a Constitutional Republic. You have the right to be left alone and to live your life free from undue government interference and regulation. Infringing on those rights is not the proper role of government. Instead, it is the government’s role to protect and preserve those rights.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster

*source: http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/

Crossposted from The Constitution Club

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Constitution, Dumb Laws, Law, Liberal Idiots, Politics, POWER GRAB! and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, March 1st, 2013 at 6:00 am
| 389 views

4 Responses to Time To Register Books And Put Reasonable Restrictions On The 1st Amendment [Reader Post]

  1. Budvarakbar says: 1

    A lot of the gun assault is a smoke screen and testing ground for the other restrictions and shutdowns these bastards are implementing — take the “if only one life is saved” or the “it’s for the children” crap and look back over the last few decades and see how successful the bolseviks have been with all their various and sundry nannie state “bans” – using the same BS over and over — hamstringing the US people and the country — now that the “Greatest Generation” are almost gone they are smelling final victory and are going for the US’s jugulars – any success – any individual wealth creation, any real self worth separate from “the State” , regulate everything from paint, lightbulbs, toilets, water heaters, etc etc while ignoring or falling down on the legitimate gubmint functions like food safety enforcement and BORDER ENFORCEMENT – — destroy the legitimate armed forces and the coal and power industries — no US drilling in gulf — move rigs to mediterranian — susidize oil exploration in Brazil — force what coal production the US has to sell to China (then get the west coast eco-loonies to protest the coal trains) –ban the pipeline from Canada — forcing them to sell oil to China– buy off the effected workers long enuff to implement the “final solutions”

    This is all part of the”we will bury you plan” — revenge for US bankrupting the USSR in arms race –

    P.S. – outta the mouths of libs — one minute they are killing unborn babies and the next they are doing it “for the childrem” — a clear illustration (as in “transparent” – hmmmm!) and proof that liberalism is a mental disorder — IMO – to the extent of insanity.

    ReplyReply
  2. john says: 2

    Of course the 1st already has MANY restrictions in place. Wikileaks is one example. Some people now feel that it is prosecutable for someone in a foreign country to publish documents that are classified in this country. Porn was/is still restricted. Copyright is another. The only one of the Bill f Rights that hasn’t been restricted is the 3rd (to the best of my knowledge). The 2nd has been restricted also, felons, crazy people, guns on planes et.al. What I think is most interesting about the 2nd is that it is one of only 2 places in he Constitution that uses the phrase The People. Everywhere but those the word persons s used. Why the difference?

    ReplyReply
  3. Pingback: Time To Register Books And Put Reasonable Restrictions On The 1st Amendment - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  4. Ditto says: 3

    @john:

    What I think is most interesting about the 2nd is that it is one of only 2 places in he Constitution that uses the phrase The People. Everywhere but those the word persons s used. Why the difference?

    Clearly because the founders believed that the 2nd Amendment was a sovereign right of the people, and was not to be infringed on by either city, local, state or federal governments.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site