While the First Amendment doesn’t ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear — a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us — whether pro- or anti-health-reform — afraid to speak out.
Sirota thinks that political events should be firearm-free like stadiums and schools. He has found a way to blame Republicans as threatening the rest of ‘us’ when legally wearing sidearms as they protest government policies. Well, that is what the Second Amendment is about isn’t it?
The First Amendment refers to limitations upon Congress to establish certain types of laws and says that people have a right to peacefully assemble.Nothing about fear.
It appears to me that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that an armed citizenry can defend itself from, and project its will upon, an abberrant, oppressive, and tyrannical government; like a government that may interfere with the First Amendment.
There is no reason to federally prevent firearms at political events. In fact, there is every reason to ensure that this right is defended. There should be some limitations, of course, like known threats to participants in heated meetings or in overcrowded meeting rooms in which police may not be able to respond quickly to an overt threat. But who needs a federal rule about this anyway? The states are responsible for political expression and not the federal government.