Why are Second Amendment absolutists so brazen, and First Amendment absolutists so damn timid?

[elfs]

So some 20-year-old jerk, who has plenty of other outlets, is choosing to sue Dicks Sporting and Walmart because they wouldn't sell him a gun. They've raised the minimum age they'll sell to, to 21. He's accusing them of age discrimination. "If they say they sell guns, and guns are a legal, constitutionally protected product, then they have to sell to me." It's a weird mirror-universe argument about bakers and cakes for gay weddings: "If you've put out a shingle and say you sell something, you have to sell it to everyone who can legally buy it."

If he prevails, every teenager who's ever ended up on the sex offender rolls because he or she sent a consensual nude selfie to a peer should have their record expunged immediately.

A gun is a constutitionally protected product. So is speech. So is speech in the form of, "Hey, look at my naked body." The constitution sets age limits— two of them, in fact, the age at which you can vote, and the age at which you can become president. The writers of the constitution were aware of age limitations. The omission of age limitations from the First and Second Amendements basically says that there's no age limit at which your right to engage in free specch, or your right to join a militia, is abridged. Kids who end up on the offender rolls for consensual sextingt were just doing what that 20-year-old was doing, and if he prevails, so too should they.

I can't imagine the kind of mental disfigurement someone must have to support the notion that anyone, of any age, can have a gun, regardless of the circumstances, and yet at the same time argue that some people shouldn't have a sexuality at the very time that their sexual development is at its most fierce and confused. It's repulsive beyond words that gun fanatics can shout their fierce pride in the second amendment without shame— can even shame others into silence— yet fans of sexual speech have be circumspect, careful, and "delicate" in their first amendment defense.

Comments

[elf]

Legal review says he may win the case; Oregon law forbids restricting the sale of goods based on age, as long as someone's over 18. There are exceptions written into the law for alcohol and marijuana, and for senior discounts.

I recommend they settle quickly and adjust their standards: No sale of guns without a hunting license or proof of membership at a firing range. Alternately, since the laws apply to "places of public accommodation," they could set up a private club for gun sales, and restrict that on whatever grounds they like. (No idea if WalMart is willing to restrict its sales like this, but Dick's might be willing.)

If they don't want to settle, they can argue that their religious beliefs require them to limit gun sales, something-mumble biblical age of adulthood = age when someone can drink wine.

There's room for a more general free-speech defense, but the courts have a muddled history with claims of "I do not want to participate in this action which I find abhorrent" that aren't based in religion.