What If Speech Was Regulated Like Guns?

  

The pen is mightier than the sword. It is also mightier than the gun – whether it is a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, assault rifle, or machine gun. Words can move the world whether these words are delivered through speech, the printing press, or the internet.  

The speeches of Lenin inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of nearly 100 million human beings. 

The speeches of Hitler inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of 61 million human beings in World War II and to another 11 million human beings in his murderous programs of extermination. Countless others died by other fascistic leaders inspired by Hitler. 

 

There is not a single gun that could lead to so many fatalities. Not even a single weapon of mass destruction could kill so many human beings. Therefore, one could claim that speech is more dangerous than guns.

“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.” -- The First Amendment

“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 Second Amendment

Notice the words – “no law” and “shall not be infringed.” These are absolutes. Of course, both free speech and the right to bear arms have limits. The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that do not enjoy First Amendment protection. These categories include fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, imminent incitement of illegal activity, threats, solicitations or offers to engage in illegal activity, and libel. The Supreme Court has also recognized limits on the right to bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Given that both speech and guns may be limited by the government, and given that the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun), why is speech not regulated as guns are? What if words were regulated as guns are? What if speech were regulated as gun control advocates would like guns to be regulated?

 

Ban on “Machine Words” and “Assault Words”

Machine guns were effectively banned by Congress in the National Firearms Act of 1934. “Assault weapons” were banned by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – which lapsed in 2004 but may very well be renewed. These firearms are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Likewise, one could argue that some types of speech are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Current categories of prohibited speech do not have to do with the power of those words. These categories are based upon contexts. Therefore, new categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment would have to be created in order to be analogs of restrictions on machine guns and “assault weapons.” Impassioned speech by charismatic individuals – whether skilled orators like Martin Luther King, Jr. or skilled writers like Thomas Jefferson – would need to be banned. No written work has inspired more people than the Bible. Hence, that would need to be banned as well. The passionate words of such individuals inspire actions in the way that the words of bland and emotionless hacks do not. Therefore, in order to protect the children from the next Lenin or the next Hitler, powerful words – “machine words” and “assault words” must be banned.

Waiting Period and Background Check

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchases of handguns. Words are more dangerous than guns; therefore a similar five-day waiting period should be imposed on speech. If one wants to speak to other people, write a letter to be sent to another person, write a piece for publication, or send an e-mail, make a message board post, Tweet, or post on one’s FaceBook page, one should have to wait for five days and be subjected to a background check. The federal government should also create a database with information about all speakers and what they said. Former felons should not be allowed to speak at all. Anyone with a “mental health history” – which is to say anyone with a “disease” according to the learned “priests” of the psychiatric class – should not be allowed to speak at all.

 

Ban on the Right to Free Speech by Civilians

The Holy Grail of gun control is a total firearms ban similar to what is present in safe and enlightened nations like China and North Korea. Therefore, the Holy Grail of word control is a total ban on speech. At least a total ban on civilian speech. Words are so dangerous that only the state should be allowed any speech at all. Police, soldiers, and those who command them will still be allowed to speak. They will be able to tell civilians to “move it” as they march them into concentration camps. They will tell them “see you in Hell” when they shoot them or gas them with Zyklon B.

All or Nothing

The bottom line is that natural rights are natural rights. These inalienable rights come as a set and may not be “purchased separately.” The Constitution provides mechanisms to amend it. If one wishes to repeal the First or the Second Amendment, there are direct and constitutional ways for lovers of totalitarianism to do so. However, repealing those amendments does not make those rights disappear. The government does not grant rights. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution merely summarizes indestructible rights that already exist in nature. Nevertheless, if we want to “protect the children,” perhaps we should ban words. Of course, nobody would want their children to live in a world where no civilian may speak. Perhaps parents believe that their children can live in a world with words but without guns. Alas, infringe the right of the people to bear arms and eventually you will have a nation where none may speak without fear of the government.