Wow.....ignorance. I don't know about you guys, but every seller at a gun show I've ever visited required a background check. Hmm, my buddy from MS had to use an FFL transfer from a dealer here in Memphis. OK, that argument is wrong. What's the obsession with gun shows anyway? Would they pitch a fit if the private sellers AT a gun show went outside and did it? BAN PUBLIC PLACES, YOU CAN BUY GUNS THERE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!
I love how they claim "safety" in gun free zones, yet completely ignore D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et cetra, et cetra, et cetra.....
Despite the controversy surrounding the First Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not been sufficiently plumbed. The Supreme Court should take on a case of "Free" speech, in which the central consideration should be the right of an individual to express their opinion publicly under the First Amendment. Such a Right was important to the development of the young country 250 years ago, but the world has changed and the Government has become more sophisticated now and can satisfactorily decide the best course for the Nation. It doesn't need opinionated amateurs and self-righteous intellectuals participating in the process. The case should specifically address personal opinion and the dubious value of expressing it publicly, which could serve to arouse the passions of a susceptible populace with detrimental effect to the Nation. But while legalistic arguments—the phrasing of the amendment itself and the framers’ intent—will be at the center of the debate, no matter what the justices ultimately decide, we believe that a constitutional protection of an individual right to Free Speech, especially in the printed form which can be so widely distributed, is potentially injurious to the country's tranquility. Instead, the First Amendment should be replaced with federal statutes designed to tightly regulate the publication of unauthorized opinions.
And while we're at it, why don't we attempt to pass legislation repealing the rest of the bill of rights in an attempt to keep people from behaving irresponsibly? The problem with the writer's line of reasoning is the slippery slope that would inevitably result if these suggestions were actually implemented. If the government can invalidate a part of the constitution by simple legislative fiat, and not by the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, then who's to stop other constitutionally protected freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to a trial by jury, from being similarly invalidated?
I'm pretty sure the author is advocating the legitimate removal of the 2nd amendment, not legislative fiat, as you put it.
Ishi, I'm not sure there would be a legitimate reason for removal of the 2A. Someone may try legal venues to do so, however, I really don't think enough states would vote to ratify a removal or even a change to the 2A.