Progressives are pushing hard to restrict our second amendment constitutional rights, all under the guise of preventing future massacres like the one in Sandy Hook, CT. One such attempt is to limit the number of rounds a clip can hold to 10. Even though there is no proof or logic on how such a limitation would prevent future shooting. The progressives argument is that saving just one life makes it all worth it.
Well, in the spirit of preventing future needless deaths, we should limit constitutionally protected speech to less than 10 words. That’s right, no American should be allowed to used more than 10 words in making any argument or stating a position. Presidents, politicians, teachers, musicians, you name them – speech should be limited to 10 words.
Throughout history, words have been the catalyst for more deaths than any single other action. Take, for example, the case in 2009 of an Arizona man who killed his wife and kids because of Eminem’s lyrics (words). If Eminen’s song had been limited to 10 words, the mother and two kids would be alive today. Words kill people.
Now, I can hear you say, “you can’t limit speech, the first amendment protects me.” Does it? Continuing with a classic progressive argument, I would also state that the constitution is a bit out of date. How could our founding fathers could never have envisioned just how “murderous” words would evolve into (e.g., road rage). So we should reinterpret it to make sense for the conditions of today. Right?
What is amazing to many is that nobody would stand for such a limit on our speech. They would scream about just how unconstitutional such an action would be. They would wrap themselves in the constitution, clothing themselves within its protection. As they should, to protect their rights, even at the cost of others dying because of them.
Ten words or 10 bullets, neither limits will save lives. It’s time to move off the political rhetoric designed to control people and onto more substantial ways that lives can truly be saved.