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

To add to Bandits summary.
The 2nd was EXPLICITLY put into the Bill of Rights as a God given ability the the gov was forbidden to touch. Period. And We the People, at least those with even a slight modicum of American History an civics understand that tenet very well. The Gov is SUPPOSED to fear the people, and 100 years ago this governor, his minions, and enablers would have been hanged months ago.
As far as irregular combat goes - a modern army marches on it's stomach, ie; it's logistics train. The more modern the army, the larger and more complex that train is. Then consider the vulnerability of this nations electrical grid: it would be almost child's play to shut off power to selected urban areas indefinitely. They are ALL supplied from somewhere else, and the transmission tower rights of way show up clearly on sat maps. Same for food, and datacomms, and water.
Now without power how does one move, say, jp2 though the piplines to ships or tanker trucks? And regular troopers get pretty damn pissy without food. I know I certainly did.
So; our humongous Armed Forces, if deployed internally, against multiple statutes by the way, would be facing, call it 50 million pissed off locals, as their resources dwindled away. A regular army can NOT defeat a determined guerilla foe without resorting to scorched earth techniques. And do you really think the Es and lower level Os in our forces will do that to their own countrymen?
phhffftt.

 

We aren't talking about a stand-up fight with the US military...this would be a war of raids, ambushes, IEDs, back shooting, assassination, disruptions of supplies and power, attacks on soft targets (like their families), etc.. I hope we don't go there!

 

The short title for this is Fourth-generation Warfare (4GW) The term was coined in 1980, but the tactics have been employed in small wars for far longer.

 

Indeed: Any one of the "elite" fools pushing their crap needs to consider those they task to put down any "rebellious" behavior: "“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?""
Or even if they would have a home and family to say goodbye to, assuming they survived their shift....
- Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

 

Now above is an excellent example of exactly what would happen to traitorous scum as long as we have our firearms to defend ourselves for without them we will also be sitting in some cold, lonely camp thinking these same dark thoughts.

One last thing... @ec451 "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."

Nonsense! I cannot tell you what a PITA it is to constantly carry one's firearm not to mention it is costly to shoot it and shoot it you must if one is to stay proficient. Plus, it is a huge responsibilty to carry one but...a feeling of power? No. You feel encumbered at times and annoyed at others, but one also feels a bit more secure - that's it. No grandiose power...

 

Aye.
It can be a massive PITA, as you noted a huge responsibility, there is always nagging concerns about coverage, flashing, print throughs, the need to securely lock in a vehicle to visit gov offices and the like. Even my workplace prohibits carry inside the buildings.
All the blather from the left about penis reinforcement, LEO wanna-be'ism, power, the 'I'm dangerous" stupidity is all just that. Weapons grade stupidity.
And you mention the expense
-@ ec451. Consider the initial cost of at least two handguns. Call it $1,600 USD. For MYSELF ALONE. I have other family members with the same requirements. For me, that's a full frame in 9mm, and a pocket pistol, also in 9mm.for the bleeding hot seasons. I run through four boxes of 9mm FMJ each week. Minimum. That's 200 rounds.My best deal so far has been a 500 round bucket @ $104 including tax. So that works out to about forty buck per week in basic, expendables cost, without consideration of time, cleaning supplies, and range membership. Then there's carrying the CCW permit on ones person all the time, the extra sensitivity exhibited by any LEO that happens to check your info, etc, etc.
So the RIGHT to be armed is fraught with difficulties that must not be taken lightly.

 

This is just the sort of rhetoric I'd like to avoid. How does the 2nd protect the 1st? Under what circumstance would you be prepared to take up arms against the government. Suppose a law is passed that makes it illegal to publish quoting an anonymous source. That is challenged in the SC but they do not strike it down. Then what?

 

If you want to post out an error in my post please do so. Just hurling insults seems rather pointless.

 

If you have a point to make, then why not make it? In answer to your question the US is a constitutional republic.

 

What about that statement are you questioning? If you can be more specific I'll be happy to support what I said.

 

According to a Harvard University analysis 0.9 percent of crimes involve defense with a handgun. So its pretty rare. Does the number of gun deaths each year warrant that? and note that I'm not proposing any particular changes to the 2nd amendment. The OP is about why (at least as I perceive it, which could be wrong as well of course) the 2nd amendment gets so much more attention than the 1st.

 

I did in the new members thread. Sorry for the delay I missed the email settings so I didn't get any notice that anyone replied.

 

Indeed it IS very hard to amend any amendments. I'm NOT proposing that we do so, I'm asking why the 2nd ammendmentgets so much more attention than the 1st.

 

I do live in CA. Please tell me how my free speech is restricted.

I'm guessing that the protest in Berkeley you mention was protesting decisions not allowing conservative speakers. I disagree with that decision, but that is not the government telling anyone they can not speak. It is the deans of a college (admittedly a publicly funded one but I don't think that is a big issue) not offering a diverse set of views to their students. Those same speakers could step outside the campus and speak all they want. Free speech is not about being able to speak anywhere you want in any private forum you want.

 

I'm not sure the references to China, USSR, ... apply to the US in 2020. I agree it is our courts that defend the constitution. We've had 200+ years of the courts defending the constitution, but not citizen gun owners doing so.

 

Very true. sorry for being late to the party I started. I screwed up my motivation settings.

 

Yes, but how does that apply to the US in 2020?

 

For me and mine it is a calm feeling that should the wrong people decide they want to harm my family and what we have worked for they will find they have selected the wrong target.