More important to freedom: first or second amendment?

[Q]

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II - Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

- Comments?

[joeybee12]

1. Are you serious?

One of Clinton's impeachment managers, who's from Arkansas, ran on a platform of the second amendment ebing the most important.

Anyway, can't remember his name--an incumbent, and he lost.

[Terwilliger]

2. I

no comment needed

[Q]

4. Hey...no fair!

- Some insist we can't be 'free' without a gun or guns. Others say the second amendment means nothing unless the first is honored.

[Terwilliger]

6. well, I'll let the gunnies shoot back at the military

I'll just tell them where they can stick it

[Fescue4u]

46. I'll watch them take you away in chains

For speaking against the government.

If it comes down to being dragged away, or firing away...

[Terwilliger]

52. firing at who?

with what possibilty of changing the outcome?

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. The 1st is more important. The 2nd needs to be seen in the context

of the 3rd, which regards quartering soldiers. The time and place and circumstances are important. The meaning and intent of the 2nd ammendment has been distorted by the NRA http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiii

on edit for the link

[Q]

8. Could you explain?

...how the NRA has 'distorted' the second?

- Reading the papers of the Founders...it seems clear they were talking about a 'militia'...which today might mean the national guard.

- The problem is that the Founders had to be intentionally vague as a compromise with those who didn't even WANT a Bill of Rights.

[A HERETIC I AM]

16. I said the NRA has distorted the meaning and intent....

but perhaps that was the wrong way to put it. The context of the 2nd ammendment seems to be that in a mostly agrarian, rural society, the need for individuals to keep a rifle handy was paramount so that a speedy call-up of the "Well regulated militia" could be instituted. It hs always seemed to me the NRA was for a virtually UNLIMITED accumulation of personal weaponry. How is it possible that ANY individual in this day and age needs a mac-10 or an Uzi? That was the opinion i was trying to express. Apologies for not being more lucid.
BTW...i am a gun owner also. I have my deceased Fathers service .38 and a .30 Carbine. And i am not an NRA member, but i support the right of any American to legally purchase, own and shoot firearms as well as the right to legally hunt game for FOOD, NOT TROPHIES.

[Cleita]

5. Hands down, number one. Everyone benefits from the freedom

to disperse and receive information. The second amendment only frees the bearer to disperse ammo towards a target. What are the freedoms of the recepient or target of the ammo?

[ShaneGR]

7. Perhaps both, I don't think assigning value is appropriate

Both have valid meaning to any republic. First, the ability to speak out on issues relevant to you. Second, the ability to defend yourself from tyranny.

[Q]

9. Doesn't the first amendment protect from tyranny?

- I see the second as unneccessary in a civilized society.

[TomNickell]

29. You expect....

the courts to protect your right to take up arms against the Government established by the Constitution?

That's generally the opinion of the NRA.

It's a bit daft.

More than a bit.

[ShaneGR]

47. No, the first ammendment does not protect you from tyranny

If someone is at your door, ready to kill your family..... you can talk all you want, it's all over but the shooting.

[Terwilliger]

53. How often does that happen?

I'd be interested to see all the justifications for the tortured gunny logic that flows from this thread.

[ShaneGR]

66. Since when do we observe some parts of the Constitution, and ignore others

I'm sorry, I respect the whole document.

[BiggJawn]

54. Perhaps when we HAVE a "civilized society", you'll be right.

First ammendment doesn't protect us from tyranny, because as we are witnessing, freedom of speech and assembly and freedom of the Press have gone by the wayside.

"First Ammendment Zones"...How free are you if you are allowed to assemble and speak out only in a vacant lot in an isolated area? And forget about getting your message "out" because the press is the bought-and-paid-for lap dogs of the ones who would oppress you.

And I suposse the Second is pretty worthless, because our military has tanks, and night-vision guns, and A-10 Warthogs, and your average American ain't 1/10th as smart as your dumbest Iraqi when it comes to taking out a tank...<sarcasm>

[Terwilliger]

10. can you give an example of your second point?

Any example? Practical example. Anything close to reality would do.

[ShaneGR]

65. Sure

Japanese-Americans during WWII.

[pinkpops]

13. I agree

If Tommy Franks turns out to be right we might be glad some of our fellow citizens were gun nuts. I think the constitution is vague in places where the authors could not agree - like the reference to militia in the second ammendment. Sure, the supremes have ruled on this, but another set of supremes could rule the other way. But in any event, both the first and second ammendments have their place.

[AWD]

11. Both

To me personally, the First Amendment is more important.

To the country as a whole, they are equal. The Bill Of Rights encompasses our 10 most crucial rights equally....but they had to be put in an order someway. Somebody has to finish 2nd.

[proud patriot]

12. I think the one the Founding father's put first

was number one in their priority.
However it could be argued that
the second is equally important.

[Andy_Stephenson]

60. Free Speech is

IMHO Protected by the 2nd.

[HereSince1628]

14. Is this post a trojan horse from J/PS?

[youngred]

15. Not even a question

1st.

[stevedeshazer]

17. I don't see

how you can separate them, or why you'd ask. The original Bill of Rights should stand alone, they are all important.

I'll concede that if the First Amendment falls (it can be argued that it already has), none of the rest matter.

[Q]

22. It's interesting that you write 'IF' the first amendment fails

...when there's every indication that it no longer exists in America. In fact...the second amendment may be the only one left intact.

[mvd]

28. Unfortunately, that looks right, Q

I get sad every time "land of the free" is sung in the Star-Spangled Banner..

[mvd]

26. Good point

The Second Amendment is like an extension of the First. A lot can be inferred from the First Amendment, but the founders felt that other Amendments were necessary to help prevent abuse. But since the First Amendment is so all-encompassing, I see it as the most important.

[Vitruvius]

64. Exactly. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the first.

And "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- Mao Tse Tung was correct on that one. As is the NRA. Much as I dislike the both of them.

P.S: I was absolutely for gun control -- until Bu$h lost the election and seized power.

[jpgray]

18. The gov't fears no guns if its information is all that is available

Propaganda is way more powerful than a group of soldiers, when used effectively. Hell, half the Southern conservatives are happily giving the blue-collar breadwinner days away--they are giving away their own history--because they are told it is good for them by carpetbaggers with false accents. Welcome to the land of indebtedness and himiliating service sector jobs.

[last1standing]

19. Both are equally important, but they should also be looked at moderately.

Just as we need limits on free speech, such as libel and inciting direct violence upon others, we need to limit what types of arms can be allowed in the hands of citizens. Personally, I see little need for arms stronger or easier to conceal then a rifle. It's a shame that the one amendment that we can't seem to see in the light of moderation is the second.

[TomNickell]

30. If the situation is ever so bad....

that resort to armed resistance is necessary, the Bill of Rights won't mean squat.

This is the fundamental illogic of the NRA position on the 2nd Amendment.

One of them, at least.

[Uzybone]

20. First

theyve given slaves weapons before.....

[remfan]

21. Neither

IMHO, the document cannot be reduced to its parts and then one part chosen "more important".

[billbuckhead]

24. The 2nd amendment is a hoax. It'll be the last amendment standing.

Look at all the free countries without licentious gun regulation and a totalitarian country like Iraq with guns all over the place. It's obvious guns have little to do with freedom.

[Nikia]

23. The Bill of Rights is important

I'd get concerned if they started repealing any of it. It is what our freedom is based upon.

[JackRiddler]

39. Right, the Bill of Rights is...

the document of the FOUNDING PEOPLE.

We hear a lot about the "Fathers" or "Founders." Most of them hated democracy and feared "the mob." They had to be forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the freeman majority (okay, this was a time of slavery, before women could vote), who refused the original constitution without a Bill of Rights. This is the document I respect more highly than the original constitution.

[IndianaGreen]

25. We need all 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights

But one thing has become clearer above all others, a well-armed citizenry is the last defense against tyranny. Look at Iraq!

Leftist and liberals should arm themselves to the teeth! Why should the rightwing be the only ones with weapons?

[TomNickell]

27. Are you serious??

[Bandit]

31. The pen is mightier than the sword

It still rings true even if you replace sword with gun.

[forgethell]

34. Only in the LONG term

in the immediate moment, give me a gun any time.

[Terwilliger]

36. for what?

what are you going to do?

[arewethereyet]

32. obviously 2

a gun is an excellent pursuader to convince people that you can speak your mind.

[ulysses]

42. if I have to pack heat to speak freely

then I'm not speaking freely.

I have nothing against gun ownership, but to base all other rights on a gun will only lead to fascism in the end.

[Fla_Democrat]

33. The Second

We want freedom. And we want guns, so you can't take our freedom away. And we want grenades, so you can't take our guns away.

Or something close to that, it has been a long time since I've watched Farewell to the King

[Military Brat]

35. First amendment. I can always hide my gun until it's needed

But I can't seem to keep my mouth shut about important issues.

[arewethereyet]

40. cant argue with that !

n/t

[Padraig18]

37. To quote Al Capone:

"You will get much further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone."

False choice, btw...

[JackRiddler]

38. Of course the First but

it's a package. May the gods help us when any item in the Bill of Rights is put to question.

I think there is no question the 2nd is meant to guarantee gun rights. You can argue against gun rights, but don't twist the meaning of the 2nd just to get the liberal interpretation you want.

I speak as someone who dislikes guns and will probably never fire one. I don't want a govt that takes it upon itself to disarm the people. It would be different perhaps if the people were not already heavily armed. Or if those who would take our freedoms as guaranteed under the First did not command minions who were soooooo even more incomparably heavily armed!

[Johnyawl]

41. Ask yourself two simple questions;

1)How often have you used your 1st Amendment rights to defend the 2nd Amendment?

2) How often have you used our 2nd Amendment rights to defend the 1st Amendment?

I don't know about anybody else, but I've never had to shoot someone to protect my right to free speech. But I have used a hell of a lot of free speech to protect my right to own a gun.

[Fescue4u]

45. Neither have I.

But I've never used my fire insurance, Earthquake insurance, or life insurance yet either.

[Terwilliger]

49. so the 1st is more important then

[A HERETIC I AM]

57. Superbly put! Great point! n/t

[Fescue4u]

43. I support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.

Its a set. Take away one, and you'll lose the rest!

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Can we add some?

Just wondering...

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Walt Starr]

44. Number 2 is the only insurance you have for number 1

That is a truth many people conveniently overlook.

[Terwilliger]

50. how?

what do you do with Number Two to defend and prolong Number 1? Shoot a cop?

[Walt Starr]

58. Read my post again and think about it thid time

n/t

[Lorien]

48. The first

n/t

[Dr Fate]

51. All 10 & 14 are equally important n/t

...

[beevul]

55. Package deal

"IMHO, the document cannot be reduced to its parts and then one part chosen "more important."-remfan

I could not have said it better myself.


"Just as we need limits on free speech, such as libel and inciting direct violence upon others, we need to limit what types of arms can be allowed in the hands of citizens."-last1standing

You do realize that the limits you refer to reguarding speech are NOT preventative in nature, rather, they are punitive. Noone "gags" someone who might incite violence or commit libel, or shout "fire" in a theater.

Instead, in a free society, they are penalized for crossing the line that constitutes inciting violence or committing libel, or shouting "fire" in a theater. Why should guns be different?
I don't want to start an argument about it (we have enough of that in J/PS), Just my 2cp worth, and food for thought.

Edit...spelling

[beevul]

56. Dupe...(fargin dial up) N/T

[whatelseisnew]

61. Read/hear Moyer's speech relating to 1st Amendment

Bill Moyers addresses the importance of the 1st Amendment eloquently in his speech at the National Conference on Media Reform in Madison, Wisconsin 11-08-03.

... The Prime Minister of Italy (Silvio Berlusconi) is its richest citizen. He
is also its first media mogul. The list of media that he or his relatives or his
proxies own, or directly or indirectly control, includes the state television
networks and radio stations, three of Italy’s four commercial television
networks, two big publishing houses, two national newspapers, fifty
magazines, the country’s largest movie production-and-distribution company,
and a chunk of its Internet services. Even now he is pressing upon parliament
a law that would enable him to purchase more media properties, including the
most influential paper in the country.

... Nonetheless, “his power over what other Italians see, read,
buy, and, above all, think, is overwhelming.”

... But at times it (journalism) has
risen to great occasions, and at times it has made other freedoms possible.
That’s what the draftsmen of the First Amendment knew and it’s what we can’t
afford to forget.

... Remember, back in l79l, when the First
Amendment was ratified, the idea of a free press seemed safely sheltered in
law. It wasn’t. Only seven years later, in the midst of a war scare with France,
Congress passed and John Adams signed the infamous Sedition Act. The act
made it a crime – just listen to how broad a brush the government could swing
– to circulate opinions “tending to induce a belief” that lawmakers might have
unconstitutional or repressive motives, or “directly or indirectly tending” to
justify France or to “criminate,” whatever that meant, the President or other
Federal officials. No wonder that opponents called it a scheme to “excite a
fervor against foreign aggression only to establish tyranny at home.” John
Ashcroft would have loved it.
...

Democracy Now audio:

http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&mount=/data/20031128-Fri0900.mp3

Common Dreams text:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1112-10.htm

DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=791191

[Iverson]

62. trick question, Q

Partitioning the Bill of Rights leads to no good, as has been demonstrated.

[Q]

63. Yeah...can't be partitioning the Bill of Rights...

...but I'm interested in how other Americans think. It's the 'way of the gun' here in the United States. Everyone has a gun...but they can't quite seem to connect that fact with the thousands of gun deaths every year. We still live in the Wild West...with cars instead of horses.

- The Bush* administration has shown that government can completely ignore the Bill of Rights and get away with it. In a world according to Bush*...the first amendment is DEAD. Sure...we can yammer back and forth on the internet...but free speech no longer exists in the traditional sense. This is why we have a criminal as president and protestors are shot with rubber bullets. The state has blended with the church, there is no longer a 'free' press and citizens can no longer "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- So it looks like the second amendment is the only 'right' left intact. We have guns...but no due process.

[solinvictus]

67. Thomas Paine and others..

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid
mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of
them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance
to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's
liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
George Washington, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785


"The Constitution of most of our states, and the United
States, assert that all power is inherent in the people;
that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their
right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are
entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion,
freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

And the last quote, of course, is a petty snipe at those who fear weapons in private hands;
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity." Sigmond Freud, General Introduction to
Psychoanalysis

;-)