Do you know how regulation works? Pointing out that there is a punishment that follows breaking a law doesn’t prove anything. Every regulation works like that; when something is illegal to do, then it is regulated and obviously a punishment follows. Just because it is regulated doesn’t mean that you can’t do it without being punished if you evade the eye of the law. You could go on the radio and swear and not get in trouble but that doesn’t mean that there are regulations.
That’s not the point. Free speech still exists whenever you say anything (literally anything) and there are no consequences. That is freedom, not regulation.
Regulation is saying “you can’t enter city ‘X’ in possession of a gun”. You’ll only be punished if caught, but you will be punished even if there are no consequences to your actions.
Yes, and many people can build all sorts of dangerous weapons that are currently regulated or produce chemicals in their home laboratory that are currently regulated…lots of poeple can do things in spite of regulation. That doesn’t mean there isn’t regulation
Yes, there is regulation of explosives. If found to be engaged in the manufacture, usage or sale of explosives without proper licensing, you will be arrested even if your actions did not cause peril or damages.
The First Amendment is not regulated in this sense, you have to cause damages or incite for damage to be done before you’ll face punishment.
Just like if you were caught with an illegal gun and were to be punished, so to would you if you threatened the president in front of an officer of the law.
Except that being caught with an illegal gun is a pre-crime designed to hold people accountable for consequences that never happened, threatening someone is an action directed at someone and it’s very real, it’s seriousness ranging from very pedestrian crap to real threats someone is well equipped enough to carry out.
Just because you are able to do something doesn’t mean it isn’t regulated, it just means you decided to break the law. It almost sounds like you enjoy defiance for the sake of defiance.
If I’m able to do something without punishment, it’s not regulation. I can shout “fire!” on a crowded theater and if everyone just gives me the looks I won’t face punishment for the consequences that never happened. At most I can be kicked out by the manager and they can do it because it’s their property.
Like when the FCC controls you only when you go on a braodcast, so too do gun laws only effect you if you buy a gun. We all still can, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be simple rules to protect people.
>”simple rules to protect people”
Name one way the FCC protects people.
The FCC controls over media that are hoarded by the wealthy, you and me have no way to compete against them. It’s a little strange how the government claimed ownership of the airwaves because I’m pretty sure a more liberalized market would have superior alternatives, but print and internet have managed to stay away from most censorship and those are the ones we need.
"Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak."
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
I have as much interest on being awarded free speech on TV as flying a B-52 with nuclear payload or maneuvering a battleship. I don’t care for it.
The case for the FCC regulating the 1stA is almost like saying a ban on nuclear weapons infringes the 2ndA.