What would happen if we interpreted the First Amendment the way the media interpreted the Second?

The topic of the Second Amendment is the right of the People to keep and bear arms. But the media likes to try to distract people with the first part which refers to a militia. In the latter 18th. century a militia was all able-bodied men between 18 and 50, who were expected to be well ordered (supplied with ordinance) and able to fight.

Now if we apply a less exotic interpretation to the First Amendment which among other things guarantees freedom of the press, we find that television and radio as well as the internet would be excluded because they don't use printing presses.

I find what I see dramatized on the evening "news" to be a lot more of a threat to freedom than my neighbor's handguns.

How do you think the First Amendment should be applied? Should that part of the entertainment industry called broadcast news be omitted?

if they censor the internet i and others will take to the streets

i think we may need guns to fight off the fascist govt trying to take over

As has already been ruled by Federal Courts and will be affirmed by the Supremes, the introductory statement of the Second Amendment (in/re militia) can be dropped without changing the law. Friend gomanyes562 is 180 degrees wrong on this oft repeated bit of deception. Report It

Go look in a good English grammary. Report It

Do not believe the media because it is swayed by money as it is being run by people with discretion.

The world evolves and so must the way we interpret the Constitution. For example, when the second amendment was written the arms they were referring to were far different than what we have today. Yet automatic weapons are legal because our society and technology has evolved to perceive the second amendment to legalize them. Years down the road that may be different, but for now they are. The same logic must be applied to the first amendment. While yes, the founding fathers would have been unable to conceive the internet and television, we as a society have evolved into a culture that accepts these as forms of communication and thus they are applied under the first amendment. Later on down the line this may change as we can not predict the future, but as for now we have to accept the media as it is.

Constitution, Amendment I (unabridged):

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.

Interpret as you will, but opinion and fact are covered by the same Amendment. Anyone can say any asinine thing they want, including FoxNews, and are protected.

Just do what you want to do regardless of what bothered you the most. Go to fight for your rights if it is right.

The second amendment specifically refers to militias. The first amendment doesn't refer to printing. Get a dictionary and look up "militia". Then look up "press". That should answer your questions.

What you and I think about how the First Amendment should be applied is of little or no consequence. The Supreme Court of the United States determines who and what the First Amendmend protects, or does not protect.

The Second Amendement only refers to the
possibilty of the need for a militia, in part, to
act as a balance against the Federal government -
(read your Federalist Papers - not the redacted
version.)
The First Amendment never envisioned the Media
controlled by a small special interest group.
Thats why the freedom of the net is so very essential.