You can regulate my speech, but not my fucking guns!

[JDPriestly]

13. I personally don't think that the Constitution intended that there by regulations

limiting the right to free speech and assembly. The Courts, however, are quite willing to enforce them.

And the exercise of free speech and assembly may slow down traffic or cause a mess in a public place like a park or the front of a public building or the sidewalk or a street, but probably won't cause any deaths. The exercise of the Second Amendment IS causing deaths. Therefore the right of the people to life, to public safety and security may have to be balanced with Second Amendment rights.

Remember how the police enforced speech and assembly regulations on the Occupy movement in New York City, Portland, Oregon and elsewhere in the country?

And Occupy wasn't threatening anyone's life. They did not allow weapons.

Open carry laws? Gabrielle Giffords? 20 six-year-olds?

And gun lovers think there should be no regulation?

Our rights under the Constitution have to be in balance.

Regulations are created to balance the right of one person with the right of another. We all have a right to breathe clean air. XYZ Company has the right to manufacture its products. But if, in the manufacturing process, XYZ Company emits into the air some substance that deprives me of my right to clean air, then the EPA regulates XYZ Company so that my right is protected.

That's the way these things are balanced.

Speech is far less likely to seriously interfere with the safety or rights of others than are guns, yet the argument could be made that speech is subject to more regulation than guns.