Beginning now, whenever anyone mentions that we have to ban some types of guns, I am going to counter propose that we ban some kinds of speech. Whenever anyone says that we don't need AR-15s or AK-47s, I will counter that we don't need network news since newspapers were good enough for hundreds of years; they're all we need now.
It's beyond time to go on the offensive. Politicians who support the 2nd Amendment should just quit talking about the 2nd Amendment and begin using the 1st Amendment as a comparison. For each usurpation of our 2nd Amendment rights, a counter with an equally inappropriate usurpation of our 1st Amendment rights should be forwarded. If they propose a ban, restriction, or tax on “so called” assault weapons, it should be countered with a ban, restriction, or tax on all media (movies, TV, video games) that features the exact same “assault weapon”.
We do not need to defend the 2nd Amendment, but if they’re going to propose to abolish it via legislation or executive fiat, then the 1st Amendment is equally at risk, and should be equally attacked. If they escalate their attacks on the 2nd Ammendment, then we should also escalate our attacks on the 1st Amendment. Maybe Communism and Socialism should be made illegal, eh?
This contrast will go to clarify that these enumerated Constitutional rights are all equal. You cannot take some away without risking others as well. If you can restrict the 2nd Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of guns, then you can also restrict the 1st Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of speech or religion.
Whenever a politician counters that the 1st Amendment is "sacred", we must counter that the 2nd Amendment is just as "sacred". All arguments should end right there.
Fight Fire With Fire
Linear Mode
