The 2nd Amendment vs. The 1st Amendment.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Dallas53, Feb 26, 2018.

  1. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,391
    113
    when is one right that we are guaranteed, superior to another right that we are also guaranteed?

    IMO, it can't be. the reason for this thread, is to point out some trends in opinions, and viewpoints on one right, vs. the other.

    i have seen, and not just on this forum, but on my Facebook feeds of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment, that silencing, or infringing upon another person's 1st Amendment rights to free speech and their right to their opinions.

    i have no love, or belief in what any anti-gun activist may have to say about guns, even up to including the such as Soros, or Bloomberg, or Obama, Feinstein, or any other person who comments about that guns are evil, or they need to be banned or whatever. whether it's outright banning, or just more restrictive gun control laws. doesn't matter. i don't buy their beliefs, or viewpoints, or opinions in the least.

    i don't agree with them in any way, shape, fashion or form, but i do respect their right to their opinions, their beliefs, their right to protest what they think as matter of free speech. and if you believe in your right to the 1st Amendment, and to the 2nd Amendment, then you also need to respect their right to free speech, their opinions, and their right to protest in what they believe is wrong, even, and maybe especially if you disagree with them. i consider it to be taking the moral high ground. now protesting, i fully support as well, and their right to do so, as long as it's peaceable, and done within the confines of the laws, as in not assaulting others, destruction of private and public property and the hindering of other citizens in their normal course of day to day affairs. once they start down that path, it's no longer protesting, but criminal actions.

    but i have seen some say that anti-gunners should not be allowed to protest, and it's because they disagree with their opinions. i have seen some say that anti-gun proponents should not be allowed to spend money on advertising, or campaigns, or funding protests. it's their money, and it's their's to do with as they want. it's their right to protest. it's their right to their opinions and viewpoints.

    if you want to fight them, then learn the truth, learn the facts, and use common sense, and reasoning, and logic to show the fallacy of their thoughts and opinions on guns, gun rights, and law abiding gun owners. fight them with facts and evidence and in a reasoned and controlled manner, since many times, they are going to result to such in a emotional response. and if you can't reason with them, then just ignore them, and fight against them by using the power of joining pro-gun organizations, emailing, writing and calling on your legislators and representatives to voice your opinions and where you are voting.

    there are ways to counter the anti-gun culture and it's activists, but it's never by silencing, or infringing upon their right to free speech.
     
  2. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    5,263
    585
    113
    i certainly hope 99-100% here believe others have a basic right to free speech, no matter how offensive or opposite minded the opinions may be.

    imo, free speech is only limited by intimidation and threats, which infringes on other's rights and happiness. no one has a right to not be offended or stop speech they disagree with.

    now...that said, and many will disagree, the second amendment is very different....like it or not. if someone is practicing free speech in your neighborhood in front of your kids playing in your yard, excluding threats, the worst that can happen is you are offended. if someone is practicing their 2nd amendment rights, and doesn't take proper care, they could accidentally shoot and kill your kid playing in the front yard.

    imo, this is why the 2nd will always be more controversial, and more heavily debated. the potential for firearms to have a devastating effect on others is just inherently real. that is why "gun rights/gun control" is such a hot topic. this is why the 2nd is more similar to topics like drugs, alcohol, abortion, aggressive dogs, etc, etc.

    this is the reason that even within those who call themselves "pro-gun rights" or those that favor more "gun control," there are VAST differences in opinions on firearm laws and regulations.

    the first is very, very important and must be protected. but, imo, the second brings specific controversies that make it a very different right, and an entirely different set of issues.
     
    kfox75 and Dallas53 like this.

  3. 303tom

    303tom Well-Known Member

    7,460
    4,234
    113
    That's kind of an oxymoron is it not, being the 1st give me the right to say as I dam well please, and the 2nd give's me the right to keep you from taking the 1st from me !.............
     
    Ghost1958 and locutus like this.
  4. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    21,605
    12,463
    113
    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
     
    JimRau, kfox75, Balota and 4 others like this.
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,779
    3,999
    113
    1stA 2ndA are equally protected under the COTUS .
    I personally don't want to silence anti gun folks. I do wish they didn't lie constantly.

    As another the said the 2nd is there prevent the taking of the 1st and our other rights.

    It's a darn shame citizens as a whole or even gun owners don't raise a, sandstorm everytime the 2nd is violated like they do when the 1st is. Which is almost never.

    Yet some think the RTKABA is a lessor right to be violated everytime some snowflake can find an excuse too.
     
    303tom and Dallas53 like this.
  6. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,948
    8,906
    113
    OH! SHUT UP DALLAS! ;)

    Of course you are right. Of course you will get arguments from people who can't see the big picture.
     
    kfox75, Dallas53 and locutus like this.
  7. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,779
    3,999
    113
    Not different at all both are in the BOR. Violating one is as prohibited as violating the other.

    Id also submit folks freely running off at mouth has caused more deaths than any firearm.

    Firearms don't cause any deaths.
     
    303tom, hawkguy and schnuffleupagus like this.
  8. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,948
    8,906
    113
    I will remind you though that the first amendment is not unlimited! You can't publicly proclaim a willingness to kill the commander in chief, you can't yell fire in a theater, and there are plenty of other every day, restrictions on speech. But, yet, we will argue that 2A is 100% inviolable. Is there a problem there?
     
    kfox75 and hawkguy like this.
  9. schnuffleupagus

    schnuffleupagus Well-Known Member

    1,877
    2,064
    113

    Firstly, telling someone that their opinion is stupid is NOT infringing on their rights.
    I lose patience with the hyperbolic language. Individuals cannot "infringe" on other peoples speech, governments do that. Individuals can ridicule, cajole, shout, tease but they cannot infringe, sorry.

    If some dolt wants to spout vile about how Nazis are cool and Jews are evil he has that right, and you can ATTEMPT to convince me to respect his speech...but you would fail.

    The right that you have to shake your fist ends at my nose.

    In fighting with Alinskyites...the moral high ground is everywhere. In the fight for liberty, against this adversary,civil discourse will be a victim.
     
    kfox75 and Dallas53 like this.
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,779
    3,999
    113
    Nope. Read each one.

    1st ,,,,,Congress shall make no law.

    2nd,,,,,,,right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, infringed meant not interfered with then as it does now.

    Arguably more strongly protected than the first which only prohibits Congress from infringing on it.

    I didn't say the 1st hasn't been violated as well.

    Just not nearly to the extent the 2nd has.

    And at least here there is no law against yelling fire or nuclear strike in a public place. Just liability if it causes someone harm .

    So no, no problem here at all.
     
    schnuffleupagus likes this.
  11. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    5,263
    585
    113
    i can't think of a single right in the BOR that has ever been "unlimited" in our entire history as a country myself....hell, when it was first written, it purposely excluded minorities and women, a violation of the principles themselves.

    i tend to think, when your "rights' violate others "rights"....then we have a problem. for example, when your speech intimidates and frightens someone because it is directly threatening, you have then infringed on THEIR rights. seems a easy concept to understand.

    just my opinion, but no right gives you the right to infringe on other's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that is my definition of where these rights end. feel free to disagree. now and always, i think rights and responsibilities go hand and hand. whether 1A or 2A.

    thanks. i'm out of this one, but i'll enjoy reading the varying opinions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2018
    Chainfire, kfox75 and Dallas53 like this.
  12. schnuffleupagus

    schnuffleupagus Well-Known Member

    1,877
    2,064
    113
    Is anyone asking to purchase grenades, legally?
    Or missiles?

    Saying that we, practitioners of liberty are claiming that the 2nd Amendment is 100% is inviolable is a straw man.
    A straw man is a an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Shall not be infringed.
     
  13. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,945
    2,334
    113
    Actually, you can yell fire in a theater, and I can think of one very important time you should.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  14. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,391
    113
    i understand what you're saying, but i think you are missing part of my message in my post.

    disagreeing with what someone says, or their opinions, or even voicing you think what they are saying is stupid, isn't infringing upon their right to free speech. wanting to silence them is infringement.

    if a white supremist wants to spout vile and vulgar speech about racial purity or how whites are superior to other races like those that are KKK, or Nazi wannabe's, that is their right. i didn't say you had to respect the content of their speech, or their opinions, but respect their right to them, and their right to voice them.

    respecting their rights, doesn't not in any way imply that you agree with them, or think they are right, just that they have the right to say what they want without being infringed upon.

    there have been a few posts even on this forum, where some have wanted to deny, or restrict what some anti-gun activists preach, or that they should not be allowed to protest, to even some saying someone should step in and take Soros, or Bloomberg's money away from them so they couldn't fund anymore anti-gun propaganda. now would any of that strike you as being an infringement upon another person's 1st Amendment rights? because it sure does to me.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  15. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,261
    6,033
    113
    I think you need to look up a few post by a certain member on these boards, who even feels that violent felons should be able to be legally armed. he has clearly stated that there should be no regulation at all, nor restrictions on the 2A.

    So no, that's not a Straw Man argument.

    PM me of you want to know which member, although I am sure he has already posted here, , as I noticed the "Show Ignored Content" bar right above the reply box.
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  16. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,391
    113
    the thread subject is not about having to agree with any anti-gun activists, or their thoughts, or opinions, but about respecting that they have the right to those opinions, and the right to voice them.

    please read the 1st Amendment for your own education. and the door does swing both ways. freedom of speech doesn't mean that you don't have immunity from being offended by someone else's right to speak their voice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    if i see something on TV, or hear something on the radio that offends me, i change the station. i am not obligated to sit there and listen to what offends me. i also don't sit around moaning and whining about it, when to get past seeing it, or listening to is is as simple as changing the station. if i'm somewhere that people's spoken words offend or disgust me, i leave.
     
    Chainfire, kfox75 and Ghost1958 like this.
  17. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,779
    3,999
    113
    That would be me. And a great many others who take the 2A as written.
    If one is free to walk the streets they have a unalienable right to be armed.
    The citizenry has the constitutional right to any arms IE weapons they can afford to squire.
    That would include hand grenades yes. Or any other weapon.
    No use sneaking about in pm.

    I'm not the only one on this or any other forum that acknowledges the 2A as it was written. But I am the one kfox is speaking about.
     
  18. schnuffleupagus

    schnuffleupagus Well-Known Member

    1,877
    2,064
    113
    Wanting George Soros to be silenced is not infringing on his rights. Only a government can do that.
    Nobody has a right to a medium.
    If I offend the rules of this forum I can be muffled. That's legal and ethical.
    My wanting the Miami Herald to stop promoting gun control is as legitimate as their desire to publish lies regarding gun violence. A averting my eyes and ears works to keep my blood pressure down, in the mean time the Herald is using its influence to convince other voters that my firearms are a threat to them.

    Gun haters hate. I suspect it is a combination of fear and a misguided trust in governments ability to provide safety.

    As with communism, examples abound in how gun control does not work. Yet the gun haters continue to bang their drums.

    For instance, in 2017, in Brazil, there were more gun related deaths than in Syria. Brazil has 200 million people, complete restriction of its people to own firearms and 60,000 gun related deaths last year.

    For the record, I don't care about George Soros, but find his activities interesting. I refuse to believe he does not regularly break some laws.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
  19. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,948
    8,906
    113
    You are misguided about the "gun haters." Most gun haters that I know just can't understand why people worship weapons that were made to kill other people. Mass shootings reinforce that attitude. You try to make anti-gunners evil, they may be misguided, but for the most part they are not evil people.

    When people run out of rational arguments they tend to attack the "person." That goes for both sides.
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  20. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,391
    113
    explain to me and others how wanting Soros, or Bloomberg silenced, isn't wanting in essence to infringe upon their freedom of speech?

    would you want them to want your voice or opinions silenced?

    and a forum is a private entity, much like walking into someone's home. as a visitor, you agree to abide by their rules.

    and i have to agree with Mr. Chainfire, that not all of the anti-gunners are gun haters. some as he mentioned may have misguided notions about guns, and some may even have some political reasons for wanting guns gone from the hands of private citizens. but you can't simply lump them into one category and think their reasons are all the same. and with some, i may not share their views on guns, even thinking totally opposite of them, and disagree with them of their views of guns, but some, i can understand their reasons, and even sympathize with them for why they dislike guns.

    many years ago, when i was working in Houston, i met a nice lady that i dated for a while. she knew i owned guns, but she wanted nothing to do with them. she did have a fear and hatred of guns. her older brother had been the victim of a driveby shooting when they were young, and as result, he lost the use of his legs and was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. her experiences with guns were much different than mine, having grown up with guns being used more by criminals, or thugs or gang members from where she grew up at. to me her fear was irrational to have of an inanimate object. but to her, it was real. i didn't agree with her views on guns, but i could understand why she felt the way she did, and knowing the why, i could even sympathize with her feelings.