If the First Amendment worked the same as the Second Amendment

The founding fathers expressly wrote the Bill of Rights to guarantee every
American their inalienable rights. The right to keep and bear arms has been
seriously over-regulated and the majority of gun control laws are
unconstitutional. If the first amendment to our great United States
Constitution were regulated the same as the second amendment our lives would
be much different. Here is what things would be
like……………………

Since we all recognize that the pen is mightier than the sword, all
newspapers, magazines, and television stations are required to obtain a
Federal Free-speech License (hereafter referred to as simply FFL). In order
to obtain an FFL you must have a clean criminal history and be able to
obtain and maintain a ludicrous amount of liability insurance coverage. If
anyone uses your free speech as an influence in committing a crime we, the
federal government, will threaten to sue you until you do what we say.

Any individual wishing to express a free thought must go through the
standard background check. This is an “instant” check that can take up to
72 hours to process. Unfortunately no one had a dictionary available when we
passed the legislation so we didn’t learn that “instant” meant right now
until after the legislation was law. This amount of time is necessary in
order to conduct all appropriate local, state, and federal background checks
to ensure that the free speaker isn’t a former felon, under the age of 21,
or a mental incompetent.

In order to complete the background check we must also know the make, model,
and serial number of the free thought that you wish to express. The FBI
will destroy this information after the background check is complete.
Actually, we told them to destroy the records but we can’t really guarantee
anything. We must know the make and model of the free thought in order to
make sure that it doesn’t violate the existing Assault Thought Ban. Any
speech that sounds offensive probably violates this statute.

In the unfortunate instance that our background checks make a mistake, you
are considered guilty until proven innocent. It is up to you, the
individual, to prove that you are legally able to express a free thought.
We, also known as “Big Brother”, will not in any way be responsible for
proving that our records are correct. After you pass all appropriate
background checks you may express your free thought. However, please be
advised that you can only express your free thought while on your own
personal property or the property of a fellow free thinker who gives you
permission to express your thought on their property.

Many state legislatures have acknowledged that the ability of the people to
speak freely can be beneficial to the overall well being of society. For
this reason they have chosen to issue permits which will allow individuals
to speak freely in public after taking a safety course and passing a
proficiency test documenting their ability to properly form sentences and
articulate all words in the English language correctly. The safety course
instructor will be licensed and have a FFL. The course must be at least
eight (8) hours in length. After these two conditions are met then the
individual must make a trip to the nearest drivers license office and be
fingerprinted for another thorough background check. After the individual
pays a large sum of money to the state they shall issue a permit. This type
of “shall issue” system enables us to issue permits shall we feel like
doing so. Once again, if we make a mistake and disqualify you for an
incorrect background check we take NO responsibility for this. You are
guilty until proven innocent and must prove that WE are wrong.

If the individual meets all of the conditions above and a permit for free
speech is issued then he or she shall have the ability to express their
thoughts in public. However, free thought will still not be allowed
anywhere that alcohol is sold or consumed, within 1000 feet of any school,
at any government building, or any business that puts up a sign that states,
“NO FREE THOUGHT ALLOWED HERE”. If a permit holder is caught exhibiting a
free thought at any of the places listed above then he or she will
automatically lose their permit to express free thought publicly and may
face felony prosecution. If convicted of this felony, you will never again
be allowed to express a free thought or associate with any known free
thinkers.

After the recent school shootings we feel that the current restrictions
aren’t enough. We would like to close the “Internet loophole”, require the
thought police to keep control of all free thoughts while not actually in
use, require all free thinkers to obtain a picture I.D. from the federal
government, and limit all citizens to only one free thought per month.
Since Internet sites are not currently required to obtain a FFL they are
currently expressing free speech without performing the required background
checks on their readers. Since free speech can be dangerous in the wrong
hands (felons, people under 21, mental incompetents) we would like to see
all free thoughts controlled by the thought police while not actually in
use. All free thinkers should be also be required to have a picture I.D.
prior to speaking freely. The fact that a person can have more than one
free thought per month is also not needed. We would like to restrict free
thinking to once per month in order to cut down on unneeded investigations
by the thought police into unauthorized use of free speech. We hope to get
legislation passed this year to accomplish these things.

In Conclusion………

The analogy laid out above is an obvious farce. After all, the First
Amendment states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It plainly states that Congress shall have no ability to regulate free
speech. If they even attempted to pass a law that regulated free speech, or
free thought, the entire population of the United States would be outraged.
The Second Amendment states,

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The First Amendment says that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the
freedom of speech…” while the Second Amendment says, “the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” How is it that the
wording of the First Amendment does not allow Congress to regulate free
speech while the Second Amendment’s wording has allowed local, state, and
federal legislators to pass some 20,000+ gun laws? Quite simply, it
doesn’t. The Tenth Amendment states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.”

Our country is based on the principles and individual liberties laid out in
the Constitution. Every law passed must not violate the wording of the
Constitution. The wording of the United States Constitution states that
every person has the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, no where in
the Constitution does it state that the federal government has any power to
regulate guns and the Tenth Amendment relegates all powers not otherwise
delegated, to the states themselves, or to the people. This all adds up to
a simple conclusion. The majority of firearms laws that are on the books
are unconstitutional and should be repealed.