By Dennis Doolittle / Herald Forum

Although it’s true the Bill of Rights embodies us all with certain guaranteed rights, those rights are not unlimited, as some mistakenly believe. I can’t help but think that the author of one recent Forum essay may believe as such.

If I may, our freedom of speech can be restricted as to time, place or manner by government. Speech that is not protected includes incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, certain threats, libel, slander and hate speech. Podcaster Alex Jones learned this the hard way.

Our freedom of religion does not protect the use of illegal drugs, not having to pay taxes, discrimination in employment, polygamy or refusing to testify in court or being drafted without exception. It does come with two provisions though, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to protect against a state-sponsored religion and to protect public health and safety, such as requiring child inoculations respectively.

We can protest, yet it must be peacefully. We can’t legally protest on others’ private property, in the street without a permit, at any time desired, block access to public sidewalks and buildings or physically disrupt counter-protesters.

It’s rather ironic the author uses the threat that regulating the Second Amendment opens the door to losing other rights, as this is the same warning by those against this Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe w. Wade, which had regulations. The thing is, no one’s threatening to take away all guns. Additionally, it’s interesting that an unwillingness to have government politicians having control over one’s rights is also now shared by the vast majority of women across this country.

I’m not allowed enough words here to adequately address Justice Antonin Scalia’s faulty Heller decision in 2008, suffice to say that for the first time in the Court’s history he rejected the long- held precedence of a “collective” interpretation in favor of an “individual” one. I submit a third interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean that it ensures a “civic duty” and seems closer to the Preamble’s intent of providing for the common defense by addressing an agreed weakness of the earlier Articles of Confederation. But the Court’s misinterpretation isn’t really my main point.

More to the subject at hand, it should be duly noted Scalia also wrote “the right to bear arms has never been unlimited; it plainly is not a right to have and carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.” Fun fact: We’ve had a long history of gun regulations dating back to colonial times and the country’s still in one piece, if barely.

It’s vital to everyone’s freedoms to realize when two or more citizens are involved, rights also carry responsibilities and consequences. Hopefully all of this clears up the notion that we are free to do whatever, whenever and wherever to whomever we want.

Dennis Doolittle lives in Arlington.