What is more important.....The first or second amendments??

F

Frank Haertlein

Moderator
OK..... unfortunatly, if you look at what factors influence the thought patterns of people today, the church, the constitution, freedom and intellectual thought have little effect on the common man or woman. You may have the ear of your peers for some period but I'd be willing to bet you don't have the ear of your peers for as long as the movies, news or media has their ear.

Many people watch TV for hours on end and the media affects its influence during that time. From acceptance of homosexuality, abortion is ok, to never ending scenes of violence, the media has its effect on people. People beleive what they hear and see from the media and it affects their point of view.

Almost all of the media attempts to put forth their views and have them accepted by a majority of people. You may speek to your church or write on the internet but your influence is minimal compared to the influence of the media. You, personally, do not have the americans peoples ear to any large extent so your ability to affect the opinions of Americans is minimal.

Ultimatly, we are fighting a loosing battle until the forces that appose the liberal media get together and regain control over the hearts and minds of Americans in order to retain what is just and right.

I have said it before and I say it again.....THE ENEMY IS THE LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD MEDIA AND THOSE WHO CONTROL IT!!!! It is time to SHUT THEM UP and preserve whatever little is left of our freedoms. HEY?? what's more important?? The first or second amendments??

ANSWER THAT QUESTION! WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT?? THE FIRST OR SECOND AMENDMENTS???
 
Honestly, I have held that they have equal importance. Not that I have thought long and hard about it, but because they are two separate rights. But only one of them could be given the title of The First Amendment.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com




[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited June 16, 1999).]
 
Respectfully and in the spirit of debate, I agree with you. The constitution is wrought out of whole cloth and it should be protected in that light. As gun owners and constituional supporters we agree that we must protect ALL of the constituion.

The first amendment supporters (media, hollywood, newspapers, magazines) do NOT, I repeat, John, "DO NOT" share those same sentiments. At virtually every turn, those whose rights are protected by the first amendment to the constitution (the media, newspapers, magazines, etc), that is to say "first amendment supporters" use that right to take away the rights of all of us with their attacks on the second amendment.

They truly belive that the second amendment is an anacronism, a vestige of another age and not deserving of inclusion in the human rights of society. Thus it is that those who champion the first amendment use their rights to deprive you of your second amendment.

There are 270 million people in the United States. The second amendment gives 270 million the right to bear arms. The first amendment gives those same 270 million the right to free speach.

In practice only a small percentage of those 270 million people own major media outlets or have a direct controlling interest in them. In actual practice, only a small percentage of people own media outlets and thus only a small percentage have control over what YOU see and hear as news.

This gets me to one of my questions. Though hypothetical, what IF you were made to choose between the second and first amendments? Do you feel more secure in knowing that the few people who control the media (lets say there there are 5 million people who excersize some measure of control of the media) OR do you feel more secure in knowing that 265 million people have the means to guarantee ALL of our freedoms? I, personally, would prefer that our freedoms remain in the hands of 265 million people instead of the hands of a few. The second amendment was designed to secure ALL of our freedoms and that means that we can use it against ANYONE that threatens those freedoms. The defenders of the first amendment who use their right to deny the freedom of second amendment proponents are subject to the same ultimate control as any despotic or tyrannical government would be subject to control by the force of arms.

Interestingly, I become part of the solution if I can make people realize that they can loose their first amendment rights if they disparage our second amendment rights. I would like nothin more than to walk up to Shumer, Feinstien, Clinton and other gun grabbers and say............

"SHUT UP!" YOU CAN'T TALK". "NOW, HOW DOES IT FEEL TO LOOSE A CHERISHED RIGHT"? DO YOU NOW SEE WHAT GUN OWNERS FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU TRY TO TAKE AWAY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS? YOU HAVE USED YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DENY MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT. HOW DOES IT FEEL NOW THAT YOU DON"T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT??

Of course we don't want to loose ANY of our rights but if forced to choose what would you pick? Preserving a right for a few media moguls or preserving a right for 265 million people?

You could ask me to go out and influence 270 million people. Well just how do you propose I do that like that? I would have to own a number of major media outlets to excersize at least some control. I don't own a major media outlet, never will, and have no hope of ever promulgating my views to 270 million people. I have influenced those around me in a positive pro gun way but still, how am I going to compete against a media who predominantly is anti gun and anti second amendment and has the eyes and ears of a vast majority of Americans for most of the four or five hours that they watch TV every day? What are you going to do? Stand up and fight or die for the right of the first amendment minority to deprive the right of a 270 million majority the right to bear arms?

I think the best way to preserve ALL of of our rights is to threaten the rights of first amendment supporters just like they are threatening the rights of second amendment supporters. It's time to put the fear of loosing some rights into their hearts. Then maybe they will realize the value of ALL of our rights and thus stop their attacks against gun owners. The only other way is to put a gun to their head and demand fair reporting and you know that ain't gonna happen. They will continue to attack your second amendment right. I say we should fight to deny their first amendment rights. Then maybe they will stop and say........

MAYBE GUN OWNERS ARE RIGHT? MAYBE WE NEED TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR RIGHTS INSTEAD OF JUST THOSE WE HOLD DEAR?

Put em on the spot and threaten them with loss of their rights.

In a sense, what you are doing is standing up against first amendment supporters who have little regard for the rights of others. By standing up and protecting the media as it exists today in this country you are handing your enemy a stick so he can beat you over the pointed head with it!


media.jpg



What tactics can be used against the media? WELL, recently, the house proposed, as part of the juvenile justice bill, (clinton did the same thing and tried to steal another Republican issue) a study on the effects of media violence on our youth. Along with that, there is a proposal to ban the sale of violent video games, movies and music to people under 18 years of age. They also want to require all music publishers to print the lyrics of their songs on the covers of all CD's, tapes, etc. They want to make it a crime to let a young person into a movie theatre if the movie is rated "R" or better and make it illegal for them to rent a movie if it has the same ratings. NOW, if that is NOT a restriction on the first amendment then I don't know what is. This is a direct result of the Littleton School Killings (an event many consider media driven because of its copycat nature). If the house proposal to study the effect of violence in movies and TV on children proves out a conclusive link (as 300 other studies already have shown) then you can expect more types of laws restricting the first amendment. Well, I say hurrraayyy!! It's about friggen time that the same media who attempts to restrict my second amendment rights get their turn in the barrel and suffers a loss of some of their first amendment rights. Think it will get them to see the picture? Think it will get them to begin and understand what gun owners have been going through all these years? Think it will get them to maybe change and understand that ALL, I repeat, ALL of our freedoms are at stake here? I'd like to address a bunch of media moguls and ask them "HOW DOES IT FEEL GUYS? HOW DO YOU LIKE IT? THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL COOL DOWN OUR RETORIC AND BEGIN PROTECTING ALL OUR RIGHTS? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, YOU PROMISE TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS AND I'LL PROMISE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! IF YOU DON'T WANNA DO THAT, THEN I'M GONNA KEEP FIGHTING TO DENY YOU THE RIGHTS YOU HOLD DEAR JUST LIKE YOU FIGHT TO DENY ME THE RIGHTS I HOLD DEAR.

It can only hasten the day of reconing that will eventually befall us if they suceed in eliminating the second amendment and I, for one, ain't gonna let it happen. I'm gonna fight to restrict their first amendment rights to hasten the day. I DON'T REALLY WANNA DO THAT, but I'm being forced to do that. That's the main point of my argument. If everyone had the same attitude, THEY WOULD STAND UP AND LISTEN.

The fact is that many children and many of the uneducated do not know how to excersize personal responsiblity and in fact are the product of the things they see and hear.

They see and hear things that are not very responsible from the media.

Littleton proves it.

I say regulate the media to ensure children are not adversly influenced and then put forth a set of laws that guarantee FREEDOM and EQUALITY of the press to ensure the American people are not fed a bunch of misleading, freedom loosing news!

The last thing we want is government control of the media.

That's exactly why we need a set of laws that ensures that no "ONE" group of people is in control of the media. For freedom to reign, we need to ensure that all voices are equally heard and the best way to do that is with a set of laws that guarantee an equal voice for ALL.

When you think about it, there are laws that guarantee racial equality, gender equality, economic equality, equal education, equal employment, non-discrimination laws (to make it all equal), equal rights is the order of the day..........all this mostly promulgated by the liberals (and rightly so) and the media they control. I think it is time we took this idea a little further.

EQUALITY OF THE PRESS!!!! It's time to champion this cause!!! HAR! HAR! HAR! HAR! (with an evil laugh at the justice thus brought forth!!!)

PS you heard it here FIRST, folks!!


[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited June 16, 1999).]
 
The problem with y'all's argument (and this doesn't mean I don't understand or that I don't sympathize) is that certain groups focus on one or more Amendments which pertain to their own, rather narrow, interest.

For the media, it's the First Amendment.

For us, it's the Second Amendment.

Collectively, both groups have not paid much attention to what's been done to the Fourth Amendment as to searches. Both groups have not paid much attention to what's been done to the Fifth Amendment as to due process.

To me, then, the "Bill of Rights" is a package. The writers' intent was to provide an unbreakable protection against abuses of power by the central government. All the Amendments are important, whether or not any one of them deals with the goring of your own particular ox. Unfortunately, we have elected people who have not broken these protections so much as bent, twisted, and eroded them.

There is one argument which puts the Second Amendment at the top of the pecking order of importance: Right now, we have a ten-point Bill of Rights. Without the Second Amendment, we could easily have a nine-point Bill of Privileges.

FWIW, Art
 
the amendments are like thes ten commandments . the number does not signify the importance. without the second, there is no other ammendment, without the first there is no freedom.
 
I would say the second is the most important since it is really the only thing that guarantees all the rest. As Mao said "All power eminates from the barrel of a gun". This might not sound pleasant but historically there is a definite link between personal freedom and the disemination of weaponry in society. When a small ruling group has a monopoly on the ability to commit violence they normally also have a monopoly on every other aspect of society.


Yeah, and Hollywood only gets wound up about the bill of rights when someone threatens to cut in on their pornography and warnography money. But Hollywood has been under the control of subversive elements from the beggining so that should come as no surprise.

[This message has been edited by Hoplite (edited June 16, 1999).]
 
I agree w/ Hoplite. w/o the 2nd to uphold the rest, they are all just ink on a piece of paper!! They are all important, but the 2nd
guarantees that the rest are not violated. At least it's supposed to.

------------------
what me worry? hell yes!!
 
It's worth pointing out, I think, that the "First" amendment was not the FIRST in the list of amendments sent to the states for ratification, it was merely the first on that list which DID get ratified.
 
Which is more important? Well, if I'm armed then I will say any damn thing I please so I would say that the Second Amendment is more important than the rest.

The Bill of Rights does not grant anything. It's sole purpose is to remind the government to "KEEP YOUR F***ING HANDS OFF!"

A weapon in every hand. Freedom on every side.
 
From an intellectual standpoint, 1st and 2ndA are of equal import as they give "teeth" to the Bill of Rights. From a practical standpoint, the 1st is allowed by fiat and whim without the 2nd to back it up.

How many of those Mexican, Central and South American journalists have been killed by "unknown factions" for speaking out against repressive gov'ts?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
As an EMT, I was taught, "If you lose the airway, you lose the patient!"

That does not mean the airway is more important than the heart or the brain. It just means the airway is mandatory to support life.

The Second Amendment is necessary to support the Bill of Rights. The Second is not more important than the other Rights, but if you lose the Second Amendment, you lose the Bill of Rights (as well as the Constitution, etc.).

As UNinformed as I am, I recognize the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 10th are infringed to a great extent. Others of you, better informed than I, no doubt can extend my list of worries.
wink.gif
 
The Bill of Rights is a package deal that defines the rights of free people. As any of them are eroded, so goes Freedom.

Hi Dennis,
Liked your analogy.

-LoneStar

---------------------------------------------
"Come and Take It"
 
To me, after review of all the documents concerned (Dec O Indep, Constitution, Bill O Rights) and pondering why (Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers) the Framers put each Amendment is the Original BORs , I would have to say that the most important Amendment is the Second.

Without a means of protection ANYTHING can be taken! IMO the Founders included the Second as the means to protect, not only ALL the BORs, but also the entire Constitution (including the separations of powers (Federal v State) setup there in).



------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
But for the Second Amendment, all others are but hollow words.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Nah, the 2nd is WAY far more important, at least to me. I agree with all manner of views herein that each and every one is equally important, but at the same time all must realize that without the 2nd the others are begging on the part of the populace, an exercise that historically has not been well rewarded.

Personally, I would allow a majority of our country to decide to make changes to the BoR, so long as they did not affect the 2nd. Without the 2nd, the MINORITY who serve as our whores in Washington can do to us whatever they please and we have no recourse, unless you consider holding a shovel while confronting 25 men with automatic weapons, steel pots and flak jackets as some kind of recourse.

Antis seem to think that in that situation we could just pass a law, or wait for the next election to send a new representative to pass a law, and everything will be just fine. I'm here to tell you that the ONLY rights a man will ever have are those he or his neighbor are willing and able to stand and die for. The only reason we get to vote today is that our daddies, grandaddies, and great-grandaddies had guns. No one DARED to tell them the Constitution didn't count anymore, the current Prez was now Emporer for Life. In that case, all knew, we would quickly find the truth in the statement, "life is short!"

Am I gonna fire up the van and head off to do battle for the 1st, or any of the others besides the 2nd? Hardly. But when the people of the country are denied a voice in the running of our government, to the point of resistance, I will be there. And I will be armed. (Or, at least I would be if I hadn't sold all my guns some time back at a gun show, to some guy named something-er-nuther 'Bin Laden' or whatever-look HIM up and ask for 'em!)

Otherwise, I mind my own business and keep my machinery cleaned and oiled and full of expendables, in case I need to plow a field sometime.

Larry P.
 
All of the first ten amendments are equally important.

They allow (or used to anyway) the citizens to talk about their dissatisfaction, gather in a safe and private place, assemble to talk about it (now called conspiracy), and have the arms to do something about it. Pretty much all of these have been drastically restricted in the last 40 years or so (like I need to tell you that).
 
From:Ivan8883 6-17-99 624PM EDT I just thought of something. It looks like the ONLY one of the ten we still really have Is the Second Amendment! The state can search and seize ,everything is a conspiracy ,one can only say what is politically correct, Fed. Govt has all these powers not stated in Constitution(10th) ,etc. etc.Our Repubican form of government has been destroyed because we have lost all the other Amendments to the Constitution and the Elites did it without actually taking away the second amendment! It has been chipped at but these Elites over nearly 100years trashed the other nine Amendments and are saving the Second for LAST! Kind of like icing on the cake. The Elites did it without the patriots firing a shot(Except for shots fired by us in their dirty wars since the beggining of this bloody century) Boy , this revelation has hit me like a thunderbolt!Does this I am saying make sense?
 
Which is more important, air, water or food?? You survive for varying amounts of time without them but in the end, without all three you will die.

Which of these numbers is most important, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. None, they are all of equal importance.

Which of the rights in the Consitution is more important than the rest. None, they are all of equal importance for varying reasons. They all hold the citizen above the government or the state above the federal government. These aren't rights and liberties given to us by the government. These are natural rights of all peoples. If the entire world had our bill of rights, would it be such a bad place.

Would the slaughter in Kosovo, et al. have happened?

Live free or Die...
Keith
 
Some of you have complained that the major news networks are controled by a small number of people. You look on this as a problem. I submit that you should look on this as an opportunity. Take a look at the ratings. The three major networks are loosing viewers all the time. Why? It is because of the lies they spread. The bias. People are getting tired of it. They want to hear what most believe. Take a look at Rush. The major reason he has such a vast audiance is that he tells the people what they believe. They can relate. Fox news audiance is growing all the time.

So instead of thinking of this as a problem, think of it as an opportunity to start your own TV network or newspaper. There are a lot getting started on the net. Tell them the truth and the people will come..
smile.gif


Richard
 
Maybe I am more than a little paranoid but...

What would stop Bill Clinton from just staying in office if the Second Amendment were totally abolished? He doesn't have an honest bone in his body that would tell him to follow "the laws" of only eight years in the White House. Look what he has gotten away with already. Who would oppose him? The millitary? Me thinks that if he puts out an Executive Order, anyone not following orders would be Court Martialed and/or executed for "Treason". And without a self defense system at least somewhat equal to the millitary (firearms) we would all be at the disposal of the "New Order".

Therefore, the Second is THE MOST IMPORTANT Amendment, as is stated in many other posts. It's like the kids game of "Rock, Scissors, Paper", only private citizens are only allowed paper. "You lose again" they say. It really does sound like Nazi Germany. And what other country would come to the aid of The U.S.A.? Who would want it?

At that point, I will be fighting as the Resistance, or already dead, and my family will remember me as one that tried to reverse the stampeed toward "More gun control...for the Children...just to save one life".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top