Why the fervor over the 2nd ammendment but not the 1st?

I often see very heated reaction to any suggestion about restricting the right of gun ownership (overturning Heller or requiring universe background checks etc) but those same groups seem relatively silent about suggestions about tweaking the rights of free speech and a free press in the 1st amendment (that the press is the enemy of the people, or that the use of anonymous sources be outlawed or the slander/libel laws need to be changed). The defenders of the 2nd amendment usually claim that they are defending democracy against potential tyranny but I don't think that really has ever been the case. Where as changes to the 1st amendment could move us closer to tyranny as information is the weapon of choice in our post truth society (specifically the US), not guns.

The same groups protesting any contemplation of changes to the 2nd amendment often come to the defense of the 1st amendments freedom of religion clause, but not so much for its free speech classes (or so it seems to me, though I have no idea where I might find actual statistics on such things).

So why was the 2nd amendment penned in the first place? Because we had just been through a revolutionary war and private gun ownership was a factor (even if a small one) in the early days of that revolt when militias (some of which required members to bring their own weapons) were in play prior to the colonies getting an army together. But that worked because the weapons available to the public were the same as the weapons available to governments (smooth bore muskets). Today although the power of the weapons has greatly increased on both sides, it is wildly higher on the government side. There is no way the US will allow private citizens to purchase helicopter gun ships or shoulder fired missiles, even if they could afford them. So any actual shooting war is going to be won by the government in short order. But it would be very unlikely to ever come to that since just turning off the water, power, internet etc. and waiting would likely be sufficient to end any uprising.

Also I think it was far easier for those in the colonies, especially if born here, to view the government across the ocean as a foreign power and hence easier to fight against than it would be to take up arms against the government here (our civil war being the one obvious counter example). Especially since one of the hallmarks of our system is the peaceful transition of power.

I think the fervor in support of never modifying the 2nd amendment is much more about the feeling of power that a gun can instill than it is about actual protection against tyranny.

 

Learn the difference between a right and a privilege.

The Second protects the First and all the rest from becoming a privilege which can be revoked by the whim of a Tyrant. It is the difference between being a Citizen and a subject; a Free Man and a slave.

 

They have to get rid of the Second A first so they can chip away at the First A... They already have by making "special" areas for protesting.

Rancher

 

Normally I would say welcome, but I have a hard time welcoming someone with no clue to the history of the US.or the repercussions of that ignorance.

 

ec451 Neophyte Monkey
"Because we had just been through a revolutionary war and private gun ownership was a factor (even if a small one)"

If you believe this and can prove it then do so.!

 

@ec451 -
Your question indicates that you are not originally from the US, forgive me if I'm wrong about that. No problem with that, there's a LOT to learn about the US, domestic born or not. One thing for sure, you cannot take any of the Bill of Rights articles in isolation, they are related in numerous ways. 2A is no more about the power to lord it over all comers than it is to defend the Constitution against all comers. There's a difference between lording it over and defending it against.

While you are doing the research, you might want to look into how hard it is to change the provisions of the Constitution. It is really hard to do for several good reasons. As one of my profs used to say, we'll leave it as an exercise for the student.

 

Actually, there have been a ton of people who have protested for free speech. In Berkeley a couple years ago we had a free speech event that was bipartisan where they searched everyone who went in and then the police sat and watched Antifa lob bricks and fire crackers into the fenced area. Imagine how different that event would have been if the attendees had been afforded their legal right to defend themselves. It was a stunning reminder that we can only have the right to free speech if we have the right to self defense. No 2a, no 1a, and that's a fact. Further, if you live in California or Oregon, you simply do not have the right to free speech because of your government.

 

You should have been in Berkley in 1970. What a circus, I escaped! But I was just passing through to sanity.

 

The second may be meaningless and a thing of the past, but the historical evidence of being disarmed often means you are either powerless or dead. China, USSR, Venezuela, Nazi Germany,and on and on all disarmed the population and their actions afterward seem to indicate that almost all governments are willing to suppress groups, religions, etc, and I would much rather err on side of caution than give up any defense. The reason the colonists were armed and had militias was that we had just finished the French and Indian War and most of the forces on both sides had been militias rather than organized armies and the English actions toward the defeated French at least worried some of the colonists, ie, moving people from Arcadia to New Orleans. Many countries have very beautifully written Constitutions with many more rights and protections than ours do. However without the ability to defend it, or courts to enforce it, and a government that supports it, any Constitution is just another piece of paper, ours only has meaning as long as we as a people support it, if we ever become a democracy and the mob rule that may follow could take away the rights of any dissent, then it may well become yet another in history's meaningless documents.

 

We've been fighting in Afghanistan for the better part of 20 years and we haven't won yet, even with helicopter gunships, far better trained and equipped troops and MOAB bombs. All the Taliban has are donkeys and some rusty AK47s, and they've been kicking our asses. Even the Russians gave up there.

So to say that any actual shooting war would be won in short order by the government rings pretty hollow. It would last for years, causing billions upon billions to be spent on security.

You really need to stop listening to CNN, it causes mental decay.

 

The 2nd and all the other B.o.R. IS about holding the gov. in check, holding them to the laws and the constitution, and is in fact, a limit on gov, and not the people! The 2nd was expressly written to give WE THE PEOPLE the ultimate tools to use against a gov. run Amok! It is our final solution when all others have failed! We have the Soap Box, ( Free Speech) we have the Ballot Box, and we have the Cartridge Box ( 2nd) and unfortunately, were fast approaching the last one! We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy and this is one of the biggest sticking points we have, as most folks don't know the difference and assume it's the later, and this is how they Infringe on us largely unchecked! The time is short for them to learn the truth, that they are all wrong and the good people will teach them the hard lessons! The time to use our rights to the fullest is about to come, tomorrow 01/20/2020, some would say, Me, I say about God Damn Time!


Up the Republic!

 

Member Since:
Today
Messages:
1

 

If you get your a$$ handed to you on your first time out of the gate it pretty much settle the dust for a while.

But to answer my own question. The farmers stopped the brutish regulars at the bridge, it matters not whose guns they used but it is clear they had their weapons at the ready had they not stopped the brutish regulars the locals would have lost control of the bridge, the road way and a ton of ammunition and ball. The war would have been much harder to win without supplies and control of the country side.
You have to understand the lay of the land and the short cuts to the opposing forces line of march.

 

Boy did you step in it, and then you kinda marched in place...you're gonna have to burn those shoes!

 

Let me summarize a bit...

First, the Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect unalienable rights given to us by God, in this case the means to defend oneself, especially against one's government that turns tyrannical.

Second, most of these rights in the Bill of Rights are included in almost all authoritarian governments like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China even North Korea. Yep! It's true but the ONLY one that no other government will allow is the 2nd Amendment for the obvious reason...

"Because we had just been through a revolutionary war and private gun ownership was a factor (even if a small one)…"
A small one, not true! Basically, every person of means had and needed a firearm for defense of their home, family and self from the wild and persons that meant them harm - period. It was as necessary as a shovel or axe. It also served to supplement one food sources by putting fresh meat on the table.

"There is no way the US will allow private citizens to purchase helicopter gun ships or shoulder fired missiles, even if they could afford them..."
No, they won't but they should; however, that is a completely different topic... The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from their government and to ensure they could always defend themselves as such they should have access to the same weaponry that their government has.

"So any actual shooting war is going to be won by the government in short order."
Helicopters need gas, parts, maintenance, etc. what if they are denied these things? They become useless. How are they denied? The best example I can think of is Vietnam but a 100X bigger and worse. The USA had close to 600,000 soldiers in that small country at one time and still could not control it, like I said this would be much, much worse. For every soldier that ignores and breaks their oath to serve and protect the 'country and its people' (not the 'government') there will be 10-20 indigenous patriots facing them with another 100 supporting them with logistics. Any movement will be harassed, their fuel and water supply will be spoiled...they will slowly be contained to defensive havens. Remember - a guerilla force does not have to win all they have to do is not lose.

This is why the government must take away the people's firearms. Basically, until they do, they fear us and once they do then we fear them...