# First Amendment versus Second Amendment



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Which amendment to the Constitution do you think is more important today?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

The second amendment is the only one that protects all the rest.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

1 thru 10 :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It seems to me that the first is more important these days.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Without the ability to defend yourself on an equal ground with the police and military, you have no freedoms. The freedom to arm yourself is what ensures that the government can never just decide to remove freedoms. It removes a willingness by the government to declare martial law during an emergency.

Basically....Without a gun, just about anyone could tell you to shut up quite effectively.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Gunowner,
Your post is of Biblical truth proportions. I appreciate you not making any reference to hunting or other recreational uses of firearms. Guns are Constitutionally given to the citizens to defend ourselves from the Gov!


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Thank you AP. I often wonder, knowing what the founding fathers felt about the right to keep and bear arms, why it was not placed at the top as the first amendment. It really doesnt change anything mind you, I've just always been a little curious.

If you value your 2A rights as much as I do, consider joining packing.org to stay up on all current events regarding the 2nd amendment. Great group of people over there. Obviously the NRA is also a great organization, but thats like saying the sky is blue and there is air in my room....

Because I know the value of my firearms, I will NOT give my money to an entity that does not respect my right to arm myself. That means any building or public area that prohibits an honest citizen from being armed ontheir premises. I do not visit any locality that would infringe on my right to be armed either. Mostly thats certain cities, but a few states as well.

I could write a book here, but I'll shut up to see where the thread goes before I start preaching.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

The man with the sword has freedom of speech, as a matter of fact most will first listen to the man with the sword!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I recall reading somewhere once that when Hitler came into power, the first thing he did was order all local gun shops and government agencies turn in gun sales and records. Gun registration was the law in Germany at that time. His next step was to confiscate all private owned guns. You have to ask yourself what would of been the results if the Jews had been armed. Freedom of religion or speech certainly didn't keep them from being gassed.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

In advance, I apologize for moving out of the purpose of the thread a little.
Gohon mentioned gun registration in Germany. If I had the choice, I'd certainly rather not have any kind of gun registration. I believe the Second grants us the right to freely own firearms. 
Having said that, for numbers reasons, I don't mind in the slightest buying and registering guns. If I buy and register an "Assault weapon," I consider that my "yes I do own one, what of it?" statement. By being a registered "assault weapon" owner, I am a registered number in defense of gun ownership. Those who oppose gun ownership have to consider these numbers when promoting legislation. I think if the anti forces can show that gun sales decrease, it shows that prohibition type laws may well garner support.
I suppose I should also apologize for preaching to the Choir. 
Back to the thread, Free gun ownership does indeed defend all the other rights we are blessed with. 
What did Jefferson say about the tree of Liberty and the blood of Patriots every 40 years? Can't be done without guns. Clubs just seem way to icky.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I think that in the day of the founders, the second was more important. I believe this because if the government became oppressive, they could overthrow it as the government was no better armed that the citizens. In this day and age, the government is far better armed than the citizenry. We cannot buy tanks and jets, and as such we would have a very hard time overthrowing an oppressive government. As such, I believe that the first amendment is more important, as if we lose that and only have our guns, we are in quite a spot. If however, we have our first amendment, we can protect the second from being revoked at all.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I apologize if it appeared I was moving the topic off course. My point was gun registration in my view is a curtailing of my second amendment rights. I don't mind back ground checks or even instructional training before owning a gun, but for the same reason I don't want the government requiring approval and recording of a political speech before I made it, I don't want them keeping a record of how many guns I own. Registration would lead them to my front door for confiscation, thus destroying the second amendment.. Logged speeches would lead them to my front door for slanderous content if they deemed it so, thus destroying the first amendment. So in keeping in context as ABBK said, all 10 are important. We can't really pick and choose.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> If however, we have our first amendment, we can protect the second from being revoked at all.


How? What words can be strung together to force a representative of a police state to lower his weapon and not kill you after telling you to shut up?

Remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick"

Jets and tanks have no real use in urban warfare. If you stop and think about it, the US military would hardly be a match for the sheer numbers of armed citizens. Keep in mind that many soldiers would join the side of the freedom fighters should such a situation arise.

Bear in mind this is all hypothetical, and a touchy subject as well. But look how quickly Mayor Nagin tried to implement a police state post-katrina. Mayor Nagin had police officers disarm honest citizens that were protecting themselves from not only wandering street thugs, but a rather disappointingly large number of corrupt officers engaged in looting the very places they were supposed to protect.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Ok Gohon and Gunowner, 
I'm going to find out who you are and get you two elected! We need guys like you leading the Country!
Just kidding. (but not really.)


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I think that in the day of the founders, the second was more important. I believe this because if the government became oppressive, they could overthrow it as the government was no better armed that the citizens. In this day and age, the government is far better armed than the citizenry. We cannot buy tanks and jets, and as such we would have a very hard time overthrowing an oppressive government. As such, I believe that the first amendment is more important, as if we lose that and only have our guns, we are in quite a spot. If however, we have our first amendment, we can protect the second from being revoked at all.


Tanks and air power are indeed impressive but to take and hold land you need troops. Even a well armed modern military is no match for an armed public in the long run.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

I also believe in the 2nd amd. is very important, and while all of them are equally important, its the that gives the whole thing teeth.

But when is the last time you've read it? Its a paragraph, that mentions militia, and keeping the people "armed" in order to have a ready militia for the countrys defense. I don't believe it uses the word gun.

Our founding fathers wanted a document to stand the test of time, thats why they used the arms. Why is it I can't own any type of arms I can afford??


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > If however, we have our first amendment, we can protect the second from being revoked at all.
> ...


Still waiting for an answer


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> How? What words can be strung together to force a representative of a police state to lower his weapon and not kill you after telling you to shut up?


Well, if someone already has their gun trained on you, it would be quite a stupid move to draw yours.

The general idea is to use your free speech to ensure that one never loses the second amendment. They can defeat you with superior firepower, but will have a much harder time getting a group with free speech to give up their guns at all. The pen, as they say, is mightier than the sword.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > How? What words can be strung together to force a representative of a police state to lower his weapon and not kill you after telling you to shut up?
> 
> 
> Well, if someone already has their gun trained on you, it would be quite a stupid move to draw yours.
> ...


Bring your pen to a gun fight and see who wins! :beer:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Well, if someone already has their gun trained on you, it would be quite a stupid move to draw yours.
> 
> The general idea is to use your free speech to ensure that one never loses the second amendment. They can defeat you with superior firepower, but will have a much harder time getting a group with free speech to give up their guns at all. The pen, as they say, is mightier than the sword.


You just proved my point. Free speakers, that are armed, can feel free to continue being free speakers. This is exactly how the freedom to arm oneself protects all the others.

But for the record, even if your not being drawn down upon, what argument to retain your freedoms can you make with words that would not rely on being able to fall back to your weapons?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You just proved my point. Free speakers, that are armed, can feel free to continue being free speakers. This is exactly how the freedom to arm oneself protects all the others.


In todays world, this is simply not so. If this country became a police state, whether one had weapons or not they would not be able to voice their opinion and protest freely without being arrested or killed. Ask yourself why you still have the second amendment. Is it because people fought with those guns to keep it, or because people with free speech were able to voice their opinion and maintain it?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > You just proved my point. Free speakers, that are armed, can feel free to continue being free speakers. This is exactly how the freedom to arm oneself protects all the others.
> 
> 
> In todays world, this is simply not so. If this country became a police state, whether one had weapons or not they would not be able to voice their opinion and protest freely without being arrested or killed. Ask yourself why you still have the second amendment. Is it because people fought with those guns to keep it, or because people with free speech were able to voice their opinion and maintain it?


MT, have you ever seen the movie RED DAWN?
That would answer alot of your questions.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Have you ever read 1984? I think that would enlighten you on many of these issues, namely the right to free speech and illegal wiretapping.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > You just proved my point. Free speakers, that are armed, can feel free to continue being free speakers. This is exactly how the freedom to arm oneself protects all the others.
> 
> 
> In todays world, this is simply not so. If this country became a police state, whether one had weapons or not they would not be able to voice their opinion and protest freely without being arrested or killed. Ask yourself why you still have the second amendment. Is it because people fought with those guns to keep it, or because people with free speech were able to voice their opinion and maintain it?


In one respect, you are right. The freedom to debate has allowed many gun owners in some states to stave off the liberal ideas that "gun are bad,'' but what you fail to see is why they fight so hard with their words to ensure the right to arm yourself is not overturned. If words could always do what guns can do, we would not need them. Granted, the likelyhood of needing a gun to stave off an oppressive government is billions to 1. In the most extreme of circumstances, the firearm, and the previously held right to own a firearm, and know how to use that firearm is the ONLY fallback one has in the event that the infrastructure has collapsed.

The freedom of speech did nothing for the mutitudes of gun owners who had their weapons confiscated in New Orleans.

So once again, I poise the question...

How is the freedom to say what you please going to stop bad things (and by bad things, I mean everything from rape to an oppresive dictatorship) from happening to you or your loved ones without resorting to the fail safe right of gun ownership?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

In the most extreme of circumstances, the firearm, and the previously held right to own a firearm, and know how to use that firearm is the ONLY fallback one has in the event that the infrastructure has collapsed.

It seems to me that the second amendment has been regulated to protecting citizens from one another, such as after hurricane Katrina.

Far more effective in this day and age are bombs, not guns, as demonstrated by the insurgents in Iraq. The ultimate power behind the people are not their guns but rather the ingenuity and sheer power of the people themselves.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Far more effective in this day and age are bombs, not guns,


the definition of arms: Instruments or weapons of offense or defense

Bombs ARE arms....


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> How is the freedom to say what you please going to stop bad things (and by bad things, I mean everything from rape to an oppresive dictatorship) from happening to you or your loved ones without resorting to the fail safe right of gun ownership?


One last time.... Can you answer the question? Its a pretty simple question.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gun Owner Wrote:

But for the record, even if your not being drawn down upon, what argument to retain your freedoms can you make with words that would not rely on being able to fall back to your weapons?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an example ... Our income tax system is supposedly "Voluntary" ... but if you don't pay your taxes you can bet at some point down the road you will have a man wearing a uniform and carrying a gun ... knocking on your door ...

While you won't get a lot of your neigbors coming to your defense over income taxes ... you just might if that same guy was knocking on your door to take you away because you said something negative about the Govenment. If that guy has the right to carry a gun and you and your neighbors don't ... That guy in the unform and is buddies win by default ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering the fact that we are not allowed to have bombs under the second amendment, your statement is moot.

You say one last time as if you have pressured me to answer said question before. You have not. The freedom to speak what you believe ensures that one is able to get the disseminate their beliefs, and influence others.

We have a perfect example of why gun ownership does not constitute a failsafe for other freedoms in Iraq. Saddam was a dictator who monitored phone calls wantonly (ahem) and curtailed free speech, yet he allowed the free purchase of guns and ammunition. These masses were not able to rise up and overthrow him, even though they were armed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It always amazes me that some people when they talk about the constitution will praise our forefathers, then in the next breath talk about which part of the constitution is no longer relevant, or at the minimum not as relevant as it once was.
All ten amendments are important. Also, the first amendment is always touted as the freedom of speech. It is much more including freedom of religion. 
I think we can all agree that for their day and age it is amazing how well the constitution still protects the citizens of the United States. It was the intent of these formers of the constitution that the second amendment was the teeth of the constitution and would protect us from an oppressive government. 
I am feeling a little lazy tonight so can anyone else find the portion of the constitution that forbids the government to use the military against the citizenry of the nation. I think under this law the tanks that were used in Waco were used illegally. I don't condone the kind of people that lived at the compound, but it was handled terribly.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Thought this was interesting on the 2nd amendment:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.a ... 0314a.html


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Thought this was interesting on the 2nd amendment:
> 
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.a ... 0314a.html


Another example of dems trying to kill the 2nd


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Again, it seems like I'm beating a dead horse on this forum, so sorry about that.
I thought to myself after the Waco incident that it would have been much cheaper and easier, with less loss of life to "stakeout" the compound with a total of four federal agents rotating in two on for a twelve hour shift, and wait them out. Even if it had taken two or more years, they've got to come out sometime, food supplies by design will run out. I mean really, can't you see it? "Hey there, good morning. Whats that? You're hungry? Well come on, put on these cuffs, get in the car, and we'll take a ride to the station, breakfast is just being served." No shots fired, no agent dead, no babies dead.
Back on subject, clearly to me the Second is designed to allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical gov. The fellers at Waco couldn't have used the First Amendment to protect themselves from the invading agents, they only had the Second.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

When Smith & Wesson Talks everybody listens. I have been waiting years to say that.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Another Dem trying to chip away the 2nd amendment:

Gun Ban Would Hurt Illinois Economy, Critics Say
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 28, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Several Illinois-based gun manufacturers are mobilizing opposition to a bill dubbed the "Blagojevich Assault Weapons Ban."

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley are pushing the bill (HB2414) that would prohibit the "manufacture, delivery, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, 50 caliber rifles, and 50 caliber cartridges" in the state.

The bill also would ban "large-capacity" ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Anyone owning such a magazine, belt, drum, or similar device would be required to destroy it or surrender it to a law enforcement agency within 90 days of the law taking effect.

Second Amendment supporters say the bill is designed to stop a major hunting/fishing retailer, Cabela's, from opening a superstore in suburban Chicago.

Several Illinois-based manufacturers of sporting arms plan to hold a press conference on Wednesday to voice their opposition to the bill. Among other things, they will emphasize the bill's adverse effect on the Illinois economy - a direct loss of more than 750 jobs and $150 million in manufacturing sales, the gun makers say.

Even firearms manufacturers not located in Illinois would experience a ripple effect on their retail sales, critics warn.

*The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) has accused Blagovevich and Daley of trying to end private gun ownership in the state by thwarting the lawful retail sale of firearms. *
The Nebraska-based Cabela's recently announced plans to build a superstore in Hoffman Estates, northwest of Chicago. The store would employ 400 people and feature a wide variety of sports and outdoor gear. The retail sale of firearms would be a major component of its business, ISRA said.

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson noted that the village of Hoffman Estates has worked for three years to bring Cabela's to town - even repealing a local gun registration ordinance.

"Hoffman Estates jumped ship, and Daley won't stand for that. This is yet another example of Mayor Daley looking to extend his power and control beyond Chicago's city limits," Pearson said earlier this month.

If the ban on retail gun sales becomes law, "it just wouldn't pay to stay in the retail firearms business -- and that's precisely the intent of this legislation," Pearson said.

Even if the bill passes the Illinois House, it probably would not pass the Senate, the Chicago-Sun Times quoted Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) as saying on Monday.


----------

