1A vs 2A

[milemaker13]

If the constitution was being written from scratch today, you can bet that the 2nd Amendment would not be included, while something like the 1st Amendment would be. Therefore it's misleading to think that these rights are "equivalent." We have the 2nd Amendment today only because of historical accident. (Be thankful for that -- or not -- as the case may be.)

In what context do you suppose the constitution being rewritten from scratch? If the liberals get enough votes to simply scrap the existing draft? Or after winning our freedom (again)from such a travesty?
In the former scenario I agree, but wonder if 1a would be included or any of the bill of rights for that matter.
In the latter case I would suspect that 2a would ABSOLUTELY be included along with very clear defining language that they didn't include the first time.
Also.. please explain the "historical accident" youre referring to...

 

[SwampWolf]

I think it's in the "former scenario" he's referencing.

 

[Deanimator]

If the 2nd Amendment is limited to flintlocks, then the 1st is limited to broadsheets printed on lead type.

I have NEVER seen an opponent of the 2nd Amendment who wasn't also an opponent of the 1st.

 

[Deanimator]

If the constitution was being written from scratch today, you can bet that the 2nd Amendment would not be included, while something like the 1st Amendment would be.

"Something like" what you see in Berkley, CA and Seattle, WA?

Without a 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment is a nullity. "Freedom of speech" is purely theoretical if you can be beaten or murdered with impunity for exercising it, ESPECIALLY if the government is on the side of those doing the beating and murdering.

 

[jmr40]

I don't fight battles I can't win. And you're not going to convince someone who has already made up their mind. Instead of trying to convert one guy who won't change our time is better spent educating those who are willing to listen.

 

[Sistema1927]

Speech hasn't changed?

Tell him that he can only post on Facebook using a quill pen from now on.

 

[40-82]

The important thing to understand is not to fall into a debate over which of the Bill of Rights is most important. Clearly, the First Amendment is the most important if any must be singled out because the hallmark of a free man is the right to speak. But what protects that right? The Second Amendment. It's also been argued to great effect by a Professor Ely of Vanderbilt University that the Fifth Amendment, which enshrines property rights, is the guardian of every other right. After all, you have the right to tell someone who is on your property that you've heard enough. Neither do you have to allow him to come onto your property armed.

The best way to look at the Bill of Rights is as if they are a house of cards. When one falls, they all fall.

Bear in mind that in that hot summer so long ago in Philadelphia every delegate to that convention wasn't excited about the Bill of Rights. It wasn't so much that they didn't think a man had a right to speak or choose his religion, but that the overall effect of these Amendments was going to be to make it more difficult to govern. They expected to have the confidence of the people that the Bill of Rights so clearly withheld.

The thing the naysayers missed then, and those who would deny the rights our Constitution gives us now, missed again is that free men are always difficult to govern. It's the nature of a free man.

 

[AlexanderA]

Exactly. It's been said that the Second Amendment is the "teeth of the Constitution"; the bane of tyranny.

That only comes into play if there is (a) insurrection, or (b) the credible threat of insurrection. We are well beyond the first, and I don't think that even the second is a realistic possibility any more. Theories aside, there are only a few hundred people in the country actually willing to take up arms against the government, and those would be dealt with harshly, a la Waco and Ruby Ridge. Even the members of this forum would be cheering the crackdown, given the strong bias here in favor of being law-abiding. (This presupposes that democratic forms, such as the peaceful transfer of power after loss of an election, are at least maintained.)

And if insurrection is ever used to overthrow "tyranny," that would be the end of the Constitution anyway.

 

[Deanimator]

That only comes into play if there is (a) insurrection, or (b) the credible threat of insurrection. We are well beyond the first, and I don't think that even the second is a realistic possibility any more. Theories aside, there are only a few hundred people in the country actually willing to take up arms against the government, and those would be dealt with harshly, a la Waco and Ruby Ridge. Even the members of this forum would be cheering the crackdown, given the strong bias here in favor of being law-abiding. (This presupposes that democratic forms, such as the peaceful transfer of power after loss of an election, are at least maintained.)

And if insurrection is ever used to overthrow "tyranny," that would be the end of the Constitution anyway.

Unless you've conducted a poll, your assertions come completely out of thin air and are more desire than prediction.

 

[AlexanderA]

Unless you've conducted a poll, your assertions come completely out of thin air and are more desire than prediction.

So, in contrast, you are asserting that the populace would rise against the government, using its 2nd-Amendment-protected arms? And who would make the determination that the "red lines" of tyranny had been crossed?

I'm saying that this idea of the 2nd as the protector of all the other liberties is a nice theory, but realistically it doesn't hold water.

 

[Tommygunn]

This the problem with understanding the 2A. It does not guarantee the right to arsenal parity with the armed forces of the United States. When we make arguments like yours, the logical response is "so the second amendment protects the right of the individual to a nuclear deterrent?". And foolishness ensues.

The right to armed self defense includes the right to a credible armed defense against the state. It is a deterrent to the illegal use of force or extreme overreach by government because they face a credible threat of armed response. If one assumes a government pursues illegal armed action against the populace, with the overwhelming consent of the paramilitary and armed forces, then the citizenry do not have a credible armed response to armor, artillery, or aircraft.

Artillery and aircraft are going to be beyond the ability of most people to operate if they, as armed resistance, go up against federal military forces, and somehow get acess to military aircraft . A citizen might fly a Cessna or a Navion, but could someone familiar with those fly an F-15 StrikeEagle? Or an AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship with Hellfire missiles and a Chaingun that's designed to take out armored vehicles?

No, the only recourse a resistance would have is "asymmetric warfare." Those military aircraft would be untouchable by a force equipped with guns citizens own, but the pilots are touchable.
In a country the size of America that size would give a guerilla resistance army a advantage. But it would have to be a significant force.

In the American Revolution, maybe 3% of the citizens took to arms.
Do you think a resistance could muster that today? ..... I tend to think we'd need a larger percentage .....

I also pray we never need go that route.....

 

[LRDGCO]

So, in contrast, you are asserting that the populace would rise against the government, using its 2nd-Amendment-protected arms? And who would make the determination that the "red lines" of tyranny had been crossed?

I'm saying that this idea of the 2nd as the protector of all the other liberties is a nice theory, but realistically it doesn't hold water.

While you cite absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the opinion that an armed response to illegal government action is "no longer a credible threat", the actions of those most likely to be deterred by the threat of an armed response constitute considerable evidence to the contrary. Those most likely to be concerned with armed resistance continue to relentlessly pursue the disarmament of law abiding citizens. I would cite this as some evidence that they view the threat as credible, therefore it has substance.

When the Left ceases to vigorously pursue disarmament of law abiding citizens, I may concede that the threat is no longer credible.

 

[Deanimator]

So, in contrast, you are asserting that the populace would rise against the government, using its 2nd-Amendment-protected arms? And who would make the determination that the "red lines" of tyranny had been crossed?

I'm saying that this idea of the 2nd as the protector of all the other liberties is a nice theory, but realistically it doesn't hold water.

I am stating for a fact that you made a completely unsupported assertion based on NOTHING.

And again, your statement had more of the air of yearning than of fear.

But then you've consistently counseled abject surrender and called it "compromise".

 

[paulsj]

Artillery and aircraft are going to be beyond the ability of most people to operate if they, as armed resistance, go up against federal military forces, and somehow get acess to military aircraft . A citizen might fly a Cessna or a Navion, but could someone familiar with those fly an F-15 StrikeEagle? Or an AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship with Hellfire missiles and a Chaingun that's designed to take out armored vehicles?

No, the only recourse a resistance would have is "asymmetric warfare." Those military aircraft would be untouchable by a force equipped with guns citizens own, but the pilots are touchable.
In a country the size of America that size would give a guerilla resistance army a advantage. But it would have to be a significant force.

In the American Revolution, maybe 3% of the citizens took to arms.
Do you think a resistance could muster that today? ..... I tend to think we'd need a larger percentage .....

I also pray we never need go that route.....

Not to mention you don't have the types of weapons needed to resist. The whole idea is foolish. It does not have support because Joe Avarage is more afraid of radical with a gun than government forces. One recent example came from New Zeland.

 

[GAF]

IMHO a lot of middle of the road people go which ever way the wind blows.

 

[SwampWolf]

So, in contrast, you are asserting that the populace would rise against the government, using its 2nd-Amendment-protected arms? And who would make the determination that the "red lines" of tyranny had been crossed?

"America is at that awkward stage: Too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards." Claire Wolfe

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Some of you forget that there are lots retired military who would do exactly what you scoff at, or at a minimum provide guidance, leadership, knowledge, and training where possible.

And I would humbly submit the citizens of a $&@“hole country who can barely figure out running water have managed to stave off occupying superpowers for hundreds of years with minimal help.

 

[Tommygunn]

Not to mention you don't have the types of weapons needed to resist. The whole idea is foolish. It does not have support because Joe Avarage is more afraid of radical with a gun than government forces. One recent example came from New Zeland.

One principle of guerrilla warfare is the use of smaller weapons to get larger ones .... or the weapons you have to get the weapons you need.

People certainly are afraid of the "radical with a gun." New Zealand is making good use of the old Clintonian principle of "never let a tragedy go to waste;" ie., in the immediate aftermath of a grotesque shooting, while everyone is emotional and they aren't thinking rationally (which is pretty rare in the best of times anyway), quick! Make new gun laws restrictions gun rights and banning as many guns as possible!!!

I honestly don't know what would happen in America if a real nation-wide gun confiscation were to happen. I suspect the big coastal cities where liberalism is popular might go along, while in "fly-over country," where people are more conservative and are more numerous, you'd see everything from people hiding or burying guns, to possible local outbreaks of "Mad-Max" -like resistance breaking out if the government agencies got more aggresive.
I don't have a crystal ball, nor do you, or any others on this forum. I used to be really cynical and claim there would be to many "couch potatos" to go full mad max. I'm not sure that is accurate .... even a small determined force can be a royal pain in the neck to a government.
I've heard military vets who were serving in Somalia and Mogadishu ("Blackhawk down" incident) say an armed citizenry is harder for an army to deal with than another standing army.
The idea of armed resistance isn't silly or foolish --- but it also is definatly not a "lock-cinch" or easy either. In many ways the Founders who had to fight the Red coats in the Revolutionary War got lucky. Had Britain not been involved in the Thirty Years War with France, and they had not received help from Hessian and France, England might have won. There was atleast one pivotal point during the war where the British might have turned the matter to their advantage through the action of just one man.
So even one man can change a historic outcome?
Yes. Certainly not anything a resistance force ought to count on if they want to prevail, certainly!!!!

Decent and sane people who believe in a Diety or atleast some basic goodness in men should pray we can maintain our freedoms and even regain what has been lost peacefully, through our vote at the ballot box, and choosing wise leaders to take decisions in the legislative offices of our country. That is still my hope. It's thin .... but not gone.

 

[BigBore44]

One principle of guerrilla warfare is the use of smaller weapons to get larger ones .... or the weapons you have to get the weapons you need.

People certainly are afraid of the "radical with a gun." New Zealand is making good use of the old Clintonian principle of "never let a tragedy go to waste;" ie., in the immediate aftermath of a grotesque shooting, while everyone is emotional and they aren't thinking rationally (which is pretty rare in the best of times anyway), quick! Make new gun laws restrictions gun rights and banning as many guns as possible!!!

I honestly don't know what would happen in America if a real nation-wide gun confiscation were to happen. I suspect the big coastal cities where liberalism is popular might go along, while in "fly-over country," where people are more conservative people are more numerous, you'd see everything from people hiding or burying guns, to possible local outbreaks of "Mad-Max" -like resistance breaking out if the government agencies got more aggresive.
I don't have a crystal ball, nor do you, or any others on this forum. I used to be really cynical and claim there would be to many "couch potatos" to go full mad max. I'm not sure that is accurate .... even a small determined force can be a royal pain in the neck to a government.
I've heard military vets who were serving in Somalia and Mogadishu ("Blackhawk down" incident) say an armed citizenry is harder for an army to deal with than another standing army.
The idea of armed resistance isn't silly or foolish --- but it also is definatly not a "lock-cinch" or easy either. In many ways the Founders who had to fight the Red coats in the Revolutionary War got lucky. Had Britain not been involved in the Thirty Years War with France, and they had not received help from Hessian and France, England might have won. There was atleast one pivotal point during the war where the British might have turned the matter to their advantage through the action of just one man.
So even one man can change a historic outcome?
Yes. Certainly not anything a resistance force ought to count on if they want to prevail, certainly!!!!

Decent and sane people who be level in a Diety or atleast some basic goodness in men should pray we can maintain our freedoms and even regain what has been lost peacefully, through our vote at the ballot box, and choosing wise leaders to take decisions in the legislative offices of our country. That is still my hope. It's thin .... but not gone.

I think one thing that wasn’t brought up in BHD that made them so formidable was ROE’s. Could they have called in a couple Cobras, Apaches, 130 Spectre’s or even some 16’s or A-10’s, that situation would have ended differently. As would pretty much every conflict we’ve gotten in since WWII. But politics and publicity takes the front seat now.

Our military won’t even fire on people across a certain border who shoot at and kill our BP agents. Not faulting the military. They take orders. And they should. Just need better leaders who value our citizens and soldiers’ lives more than they do others.

 

[stillquietvoice]

understanding the 2A. It does not guarantee the right to arsenal parity with the armed forces of the United States. When we

IMHO a lot of middle of the road people go which ever way the wind blows.

The founding fathers added to our understanding of 2a in 1791 and 1792 with the militia acts explaining what a militia soldier should possess to be effective as a militia member. 1792 act says militia should be and as well as a standing military soldier.

Your coworker is mistaken. The Second Amendment's intention was to allow the citizenry to be armed in such a manner that they could overthrow the government if they felt in necessary. What you say? Why that's treason! Exactly. That;s exactly what the folks that framed the Constitution and a bit later the Bill of Rights had recently done. Folks seem to forget that the Revolutionary War/War of Independence was and overthrow of the British government.

We could hardly overthrow the current government with flintlocks. In fact we should have access to weapons that put us on a parity with the current government's armed forces. That was the intention of the Second Amendment. I suggest your coworker read a bit.

If the 2nd Amendment is limited to flintlocks, then the 1st is limited to broadsheets printed on lead type.

I have NEVER seen an opponent of the 2nd Amendment who wasn't also an opponent of the 1st.

If the framers weren't open to advancements in as then it stands to reason that they wouldn't have foreseen advancements informs of speech and therefore free speech would be limited to hand written letters type printing and unamplified speach. No radio, TV or internet allowed to be protected by 1a.

 

[Deanimator]

Not to mention you don't have the types of weapons needed to resist. The whole idea is foolish. It does not have support because Joe Avarage is more afraid of radical with a gun than government forces. One recent example came from New Zeland.

Yeah, I don't have two sniper rifles...

• With a handgun, I can get an assault rifle.
• With an assault rifle, I can get a machine gun.
• With a machine gun, I can get an anti-tank weapon.
• With an anti-tank weapon, I can get a tank.

If you think that tyranny always succeeds, you might want to ask Nicolae Ceaușescu about that.

 

[Paul7]

If I had my way I would restrict the First Amendment rights of many news outlets and “personalities” the way our Second Amendment rights have been trampled and see how they like it.

I’ll bet that would change their outlook.

Maybe make them get a permit, or use a quill pen.

 

[Pat Riot]

Maybe make them get a permit, or use a quill pen.

Excellent point. Make them utilize the technology available in the late 18th century. And turn off the air conditioners in the summer as well.

 

[paulsj]

One principle of guerrilla warfare is the use of smaller weapons to get larger ones .... or the weapons you have to get the weapons you need.

People certainly are afraid of the "radical with a gun." New Zealand is making good use of the old Clintonian principle of "never let a tragedy go to waste;" ie., in the immediate aftermath of a grotesque shooting, while everyone is emotional and they aren't thinking rationally (which is pretty rare in the best of times anyway), quick! Make new gun laws restrictions gun rights and banning as many guns as possible!!!

I honestly don't know what would happen in America if a real nation-wide gun confiscation were to happen. I suspect the big coastal cities where liberalism is popular might go along, while in "fly-over country," where people are more conservative and are more numerous, you'd see everything from people hiding or burying guns, to possible local outbreaks of "Mad-Max" -like resistance breaking out if the government agencies got more aggresive.
I don't have a crystal ball, nor do you, or any others on this forum. I used to be really cynical and claim there would be to many "couch potatos" to go full mad max. I'm not sure that is accurate .... even a small determined force can be a royal pain in the neck to a government.
I've heard military vets who were serving in Somalia and Mogadishu ("Blackhawk down" incident) say an armed citizenry is harder for an army to deal with than another standing army.
The idea of armed resistance isn't silly or foolish --- but it also is definatly not a "lock-cinch" or easy either. In many ways the Founders who had to fight the Red coats in the Revolutionary War got lucky. Had Britain not been involved in the Thirty Years War with France, and they had not received help from Hessian and France, England might have won. There was atleast one pivotal point during the war where the British might have turned the matter to their advantage through the action of just one man.
So even one man can change a historic outcome?
Yes. Certainly not anything a resistance force ought to count on if they want to prevail, certainly!!!!

Decent and sane people who believe in a Diety or atleast some basic goodness in men should pray we can maintain our freedoms and even regain what has been lost peacefully, through our vote at the ballot box, and choosing wise leaders to take decisions in the legislative offices of our country. That is still my hope. It's thin .... but not gone.

Local outbreaks can be dealt with by removing those that support the rebels ie resettling them in diffetent areas like Stalin used to do. The key to winning guerilla movement is to remove base of their support.

 

[milemaker13]

I think that kind of thing would likely stir up even more people and pull them off the fence and into the rebellion.
People are comfortable if weird stuff happens to others on the news or whatever but when the gov forces them to do things they are not ok with (forced relocation??) they will generally fight back.

Anyway, the point of my OP was actually more about my coworkers comparison saying that speech hasn't changed while guns have so it would be ok to repeal the 2nd but can't touch the 1st. Besides(he says) the gov doesnt want to control us, doesnt want to take away our guns... if someone hadn't gone and made a little toy version of the M-16....