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

In case you have not noticed that has been covered numerous times.
.

 

If you actually read my reply it is simple to see you do not know what happened in the colonies and how a small determined group with their private arms stopped the British Invaders.
Now I have covered what you ask, fear not I do not desire to beat this horse anymore.
Subject closed.

 

My OP was about why the 2nd amendment generates so much fervor while the 1st much less so. You are a prime example. You just responded as if I had proposed that we repeal the 2nd amendment, which I did not.

Vietnam (where the US was fighting one group of Vietnamese) is a very different country and environment than the US where (n your example) we would be fighting each other.

I have also not seen any source that claims more than 50% (most much less) of citizens owned a firearm in early America. And a flint lock muzzle loader does not make for a very good self defense weapon (unless you can get your attacker to wait a moment while you load the pan).

 

Well, Lets look at the Bill of Rights, and lets look at the protections afforded within them! Yes, specific language is contained within those documents that spells out HOW We the People protect those rights! That language is spelled out with in the Federalist papers and the short version is the Second Amendment, it also spells out how the B.o.R. may be changed and it's requirements, and also how it is protected!
The 2nd does protect the others, in that it gives We the People the power to take up arms and hold any infringements in harm, and we can act as needed to hold the line against any infringements! Take the Virginia case as an example, the good people took a stand against a serious infringement by a Gov'ner run amok, and they held the Gov'ner and his lackies in check, by showing up ARMED and ready to act, with violence if needed! Hard to argue for your infringement with a loaded .45 pointed in your face! And said Gov'ner also placed restrictions on free speech by fencing off and funneling folks in, and surrounding them with heavily armed police and snipers, thus preventing them from exercising their freedoms unhindered, in this case, blocked and overwatched by armed government! What kept things from popping off, likely the THOUSANDS of heavy armed patriots just outside the event surrounding the whole city!

 

TO answer your need for numbers of folks who owned arms, it's really quite simple, every one had arms, and knew how to use them, if you wanted to eat, and protect your food sources, you had arms! 50% is likely way off, actual numbers are likely much higher, that EVERY male Member of a household, and community would have had arms close at hand!

 

Incorrect, the free speech event was about the city disallowing conservative speakers in public forums. Further, publicly funded universities are public spaces in accordance with legal precedent. If law enforcement doesn't equally apply the law, they have effectively made it illegal to speak in public spaces. Further, if you have no problem with the police disarming any group, rounding them up into a fenced area, and then allowing others to throw objects at them, I can't think much of you. I hate to go all ad hitlerum on you, but that is precisely what was done in WWII Germany. You only have free speech if you say what they want you to, else, you might just get hurt.

 

Perhaps you are that rare individual how objectively can asset their motives. But I'm skeptical (nothing personal) since humans are just not very good and such things. What is the probability of having to use your weapon to protect yourself vs the probability of other possible life threatening events and what measures have you taken to mitigate those?

 

This https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr offers the heist rate I could find its statistics are pretty bad (very small sample size) and it only gets to at most 50%. If you want to counter that then show me the data.

 

Easy answer? Because the left is so adamant about removing that right, and history is absolutely riddled with the deaths of hundreds of millions of people that were unable to tell a tyrannical ruling body NO. I personally will not be boarding any transport arranged by our benevolent masters. Ever. And yes it can happen here.

 

Study history, How did folks eat, and how did they get meat? You didn't go to the local store to purchase fresh meat, so...................

You had to kill it to eat it, and your kids needed meat to grow proper!

I seriously doubt there are any stats or records that would prove this, but I also doubt the example you post as factual, given the actual needs that existed in those days!

 

OK, I'm not aware of that. Can you offer a link? I would say the obvious resolution is to take this to court, not get out your guns. So was it?

 

I don't really think the left wants to remove the right to own a weapon, just to regulate it. That claim is just something the NRA likes to push (as its in their financial interests).

 

To further answer your question of the numbers of armed people, it was REQUIRED all males between the ages of 18 and 45 were to be armed and equipped with sufficient power and ball and food stuffs to report to any muster and failure to be armed and equipped would result in fines and even imprisonment! Imagine that, being Required to be armed and equipped and ready to report to any muster! What would happen if that were to be required today?

 

William & Mary Law Review Volume 43|Issue 5Article 2Counting Guns in Early America

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

 

OK, point taken. I think your situation is very different from the vast majority of the population. Personally I'm very glad I don't live more than an hour away from an ER, as I'd be dead.

 

YOU are quite wrong, Watch ANY public speech of Michael Bloomberg or any other Anti Democrat, they flat out admit they want total dissarment! Look at the States to your north, they both demand a total ban on all semi auto firearms, and restrictions on capacity and ammo! You really should do some basic research on these topics before posting! Your statements about the NRA is quite telling, almost like your trolling!

 

No one brought guns to the event, if they did, they were disarmed. The only people with weapons were outside of the event, throwing bricks and fireworks in. The police refused to protect those who were inside of the event from those outside of the event. This has been a trend of liberal mayors telling police departments to stand down while conservatives are harmed by liberal groups. Another trend of liberal DA's giving absurdly light sentences to liberal attackers and insane sentences to conservatives attempting to protect themselves. In Portland a conservative was surrounded by a group of Antifa attackers within eyesight of the police who did nothing. The conservative pulled a gun out and fired a shot into a nearby tree, which had the desired effect of running off the Antifa bullies. The police then promptly arrested the conservative for "reckless discharge of a firearm". This is one descriptor of the free speech event in Berkeley. Note that everyone understands the violence is by the left, but they conclude that left wing violence means no one they disagree with is allowed to have free speech. And to top off that pile of rubbish, the left is violent, but they also conclude that means the right wing are provoking it. It's disgusting. If the right was being given equality under the law, and allowed to defend themselves, there would be no problem. Note the first example of someone merely pulling out a gun and the left wing bullies scattered. Like all bullies, they are only interested in attacking if they think they have a hapless victim.

 

I'm not sure why this isn't allowing me to include links. Sorry. It is pretty easy to look it up though, and there is plenty of video if you wonder about trusted sources.