Following a mass shooting like the one in Orlando, social media becomes abuzz with gun control proponents, viral videos on the subject and sometimes rigorous but usually factually lacking debate.
Gun activists see restrictions on the Second Amendment as unprecedented violations. This is simply not the case, and thinking this way is irresponsible when so many lives are on the line.
One such video that began circulating on Facebook again was an old clip from “The Daily Show,” in which correspondent John Oliver interviews Philip Van Cleave, a gun lobbyist of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Oliver asks Van Cleave if gun control measures, like increased background checks, violate the Second Amendment.
Van Cleave believes they do because “we don’t do background checks on the First Amendment.”
And while he’s right that citizens don’t need to complete a background check in order to exercise their First Amendment rights, they do need to comply with certain restrictions on their rights imposed by a variety of Supreme Court decisions.
For example, Schenck v. United States determined speech that presents a clear and present danger is not protected by the First Amendment and can be prosecuted. Fighting words aren’t protected either, as determined by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
It is illegal to maliciously print libelous information about a person, according to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
The freedom to assemble and petition is restricted and prosecutable when such an assembly becomes violent, threatening or dangerous to others.
In other words, every First Amendment right is revoked when the usage of that right presents the potential to cause others harm.
The Second Amendment should be no different.
Americans treat the Second Amendment as more sacrosanct than any of our other Constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday police no longer need a probable cause or a warrant to search you if that search originated by asking you for identification, despite having done nothing wrong.
This decision essentially eviscerates the Fourth Amendment.
Yet, on the very same day, when the Senate voted on measures to strengthen background checks and prevent suspected terrorists from being able to obtain firearms, that bill was voted down in the name of protecting the Second Amendment.
The unbridled practice of Second Amendment rights causes harm. That’s a fact. Whether you blame guns, people, gun culture or violence, guns are needed to commit mass shootings.
And, no, that’s not the fault of responsible gun owners.
But truly responsible gun owners wouldn’t mind passing a host of mental and criminal background checks, adhering to a mandatory waiting time, attaining the proper permits and licenses, abiding by restrictions on purchasable types of guns and ammunition and justifying their need for ownership.
When any of those measures are proposed in Congress, they’re treated as Second Amendment violations. This is ridiculous because the Second Amendment specifically says “well-regulated.”
The founders prohibited restrictions on the First Amendment, yet we impose them anyway. But when the founders ask for regulation on the Second Amendment, gun activists throws a hissy fit.
Perhaps gun activists should value the lives of others and the truth of the Constitution more than their fetish for weaponry.
