It’s striking how many Americans seem to champion the Second Amendment with more fervor than the First. That imbalance surprises me.
Anyone with a grasp of history and the English language knows the phrase “right to bear arms” is, at best, ambiguous. As I’ve said before, the clearest reading of the Second Amendment supports a state militia member keeping a single-shot musket at home. The framers didn’t anticipate flamethrowers, grenades, or other weapons of mass destruction—all of which are illegal in every state. So invoking the Second Amendment to justify ownership of modern military-grade assault weapons feels like a stretch, if not a deliberate misreading.
Contrast that with the First Amendment, which is refreshingly unambiguous: free speech shall not be suppressed. Yes, there are exceptions—speech that incites violence, defames, or traffics in obscenity like child pornography. But “hate speech”? That’s not prohibited. It’s not even clearly definable, since its impact depends entirely on the listener’s subjective reaction.
For most of us, free speech is a cornerstone of what makes America exceptional.
I’ve never been a fan of political correctness—the compulsive sanitizing of language to avoid offense. The pearl-clutchers who flinch at “Indian” instead of “Indigenous peoples” are humorless and exhausting. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects your right to call someone a homeless illegal immigrant, even if it makes the language police squirm.
Which brings us to the curious case of Jimmy Kimmel’s indefinite suspension, allegedly over remarks made after the Kirk assassination. I’ve reviewed what he said and can’t fathom why it warranted suppression. He essentially called the killer a right-wing extremist. That’s enough to send the right into a tailspin, desperate to recast the shooter as a gender-fluid leftist.
Based on current information, the shooter appears to have targeted Kirk in response to his comments about homosexuality and transgender identity. We’re told the shooter had a roommate transitioning to female, which makes retaliation seem plausible.
Let’s be clear: no one should condone murder over speech. And anyone who celebrates Kirk’s death because of his views is standing in direct opposition to the values the First Amendment enshrines.
(Microsoft Copilot helped compose this post)
