jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (6 posts)

Which is more important, the 2nd or 1st Amendment?

  1. andrew savage profile image61
    andrew savageposted 5 years ago

    Which is more important, the 2nd or 1st Amendment?

  2. Diana Lee profile image82
    Diana Leeposted 5 years ago

    Shooting off one's mouth can be just as dangerous as threatening them with a gun.  More than one person has meant their death by either self inflicted injuries or by the hands of others not thinking before they act. If Bullies could be stopped or the media/public not as quick to spread rumors, both the numbers of suicides and murders could be reduced.  With this in mind I believe the 1st amendment is more important.

  3. ambercita04 profile image79
    ambercita04posted 5 years ago

    I think freedom of speech is more important than the right to bear arms. Voice is how we communicate and express ourselves so that others can understand us.

  4. rfmoran profile image87
    rfmoranposted 5 years ago

    The second amendment secures the first. They are therefore equally important.

    1. lone77star profile image83
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. But I wouldn't put it past the CIA creating their own "lone gunmen" to chip away at the 2nd.

      It's already a felony to protest the government (HR 347). And all those attempts - SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, TPP and others.

  5. lone77star profile image83
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Both are vitally important.

    It does little good to be able to speak if you have an army, navy and air force commanding your movements.

    And it does little good to have a big cache of weapons and ammunition, if you cannot coordinate with others who are defending freedom. That's why bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and TPP are so disturbing. Someone is plugging all of the freedoms that made America unique.

    But they're doing it in a way that it seems to solve something unrelated, like piracy of intellectual property (music, writing and software). The problem is, there are already laws in place to take care of piracy. We don't need more laws to handle what is already well taken care of. Someone must need these in place, or something like them (since most of these pieces of legislation have already been killed by an alert citizenry). Why would anyone need these? Simple. To chip away at the Constitution and Bill of Rights until there's nothing left of them. To give law enforcement the ability to shut down websites that threaten the corporate-government agenda. Such legislation is judge-jury-executioner in the hands of a government bureaucrat, but without oversight. No more checks and balances.

    Like Obama has no more checks and balances. He goes to war without the approval of Congress. He writes laws by executive signing statements. In fact, he's made more signing statements than all other presidents combined! And ooops! He promised not to use signing statements. Not only did he lie about that, but he set a record!

    I was so enthusiastic about Obama, before I knew better. Anyone who still likes the guy hasn't been paying attention, or has been watching too much Corporate Party news (propaganda).

    How is this all happening? 9/11!

    And 9/11 was an inside job.

    Just ask yourself if a tree would fall over or straight down when chopped on the side. Asymmetric damage never leads to symmetrical collapse, and yet that's what the government is trying to sell us.

    Free fall acceleration never happens in a building collapse unless explosives are involved, cutting all columnar supports in synchronization. NIST should've known this. It's simple physics. And yet they lied continuously.

    So, the big question is: Who is behind all this?

    Why did Mayor Giuliani commit a felony, cleaning up the largest crime scene in history, before the investigation could be performed. Imagine an autopsy without the body.

    Why did military officers responsible for 9/11 failures all get promotions?

 
working