Would you have the same outrage if this was about free speech?
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is going to introduce “Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011”.
Let’s take her press release and do a little word-substitution:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today announced that next week she will introduce the Common-Sense Speech Act of 2011, which would require all states that allow residents to speak in public to have minimum standards for granting permits.
Senator Boxer said, “The tragic events in Tucson earlier this month are a reminder of why we need common-sense speech laws. This measure will establish reasonable permitting standards for Americans who wish to speak. According to a recent poll, more than 60 percent of respondents believe there should be a reasonable permitting process for those who wish to speak.”
Senator Boxer’s legislation would require all states that allow residents to speak to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to speak.
Currently, two states do not permit residents to speak, while three states, including Arizona, allow residents to speak in public without a permit. The other 45 states require residents to obtain permits to speak, but the majority of these states would not meet the standard set in this bill.
Words can be even more damaging than a gun, but if anyone tried the above, they’d be rode out on a rail.
Your 2A rights are what maintain your 1A rights. Lose your 2A rights and your 1A rights aren’t far behind.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Good comparison, and it fit especially given the level of demagoguery and “climate of hateful rhetoric” that was initially blamed (bu the Left on the Right) as being responsible for the shooting – and later proved insignificant aspects of a much troubled mind more akin to a garden variety Leftist-truther than a conservative. May have to borrow this.
But you know… we haven’t heard any apologies or retractions for all that incorrect jumping to conclusions… because you know, that wouldn’t fit the narrative.
It’s just fitting to replace 2A with 1A and see how it goes. Most of “those people” would kill over any sort of 1A infringement (or even any of the other A’s), but then why not 2A? Makes little sense, especially since it’s 2A that ultimately enforces all the others.
I must’ve missed the part where the ‘tragic events in Tucson’ were crimes committed by a CHL holder?