I’m constantly amazed at the number of people who tend to be selective in their observance of the Bill of Rights. I’m not talking about people who disagree what Freedom of Religion means, either. No, I mean those who will clamor for things like a free press (which I agree with, mind you) while also clamoring for things like gun control. It’s baffling how some folks can look at one amendment as sacrosanct while looking at another as merely a suggestion.

Now, one Indiana state lawmaker, Rep. Jim Lucas, has flipped things around on journalists, and it’s hysterical.

An Indiana Representative is forcing the establishment media to look in the mirror and face their hypocrisy.

He is proposing the First Amendment in Indiana be treated the same as the Second Amendment. His proposal is that journalists be required to apply for a license before they are allowed to publish.

If they have felony convictions, they might not be allowed to publish.

From fox59.com:

Lucas, from Seymour, has been critical of the media’s coverage of his efforts to repeal a state law that requires a permit to carry a handgun.

He has stated reporters, columnists and editorial boards mischaracterize his idea, which is sometimes referred to as “constitutional carry.”

“If I was as irresponsible with my handgun as the media has been with their keyboard, I’d probably be in jail,” Lucas said.

The proposal would require professional journalists to submit an application with Indiana State Police. They would be fingerprinted and would have to pay $75 for a lifetime license.

Lenin, the famous Communist, was reported to have made a similar point, as recorded in Lord Riddell’s Diary of the Peace Conference, published in 1934. The entry was written in 1920:
  “Why should a Government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticised? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. And as to the freedom of the Press, why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the Government?”

I’m sorry, but this is hysterical.

No, I do not actually support licensing journalists, but it makes the point nicely. If one right can be so easily regulated, why should others be immune? This is a concept leftists should be familiar with, after all. They love to use the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” example to limiting rights in the first place. Why can’t that turn around and impact something else?

The truth of the matter is that a right is something that should never be restricted. Ever.

Even their “yelling fire” example isn’t an abridgment of anyone’s right. It’s simply about the ramifications of being irresponsible with your right. You can yell fire in a crowded theater all you want without any problems under several conditions. One, of course, is if there’s a fire, obviously. Another is if no one has any reason to believe there’s a fire, such as an actor performing in a play or a speaker who yells it within some broader context.

All that Lucas and his bill are doing is pointing out how one set of restrictions accepted on the Second Amendment would never be tolerated if applied to the First. He’s trolling and doing it well.