Marijuana.com

shibshib

I know we all want to keep them all, but if you had to choose one (which lately seems to be happening in America) which do you go for?

Keep in mind...

Choosing the First Amendment over the 2nd gives you the right to--at some later point--freely voice yourself with others and rescue the 2nd amendment.

Choosing the 2nd Amendment over the first gives you the hypothetical power to force the government to give you back your first amendment rights.

Keeping neutral in this post, that is all I will say regarding either.

Edit: Also keep in mind, this is assuming they take either right away today, which means--in the case of them taking away the 2nd amendment, you would still have your guns/ammo... just not the consitutional right of ownership.

__________________
Q: Does weed make you smarter, ShibShib?
A: No, it just focuses me. ADHD is like having a bunch of TVs in your head, all running different programs, and having no ability to control them. Marijuana not only appears to give me a remote, it also allows me to shut off all the other TVs sucking up the juice... which makes the TV I'm watching a bit brighter.

 

Buzzby

What gives you the idea that we might need to choose?

Wrong! Once we give up our guns we become subjects, not citizens. An unarmed populace can be forced to do anything by an armed government. Without the Second Amendment, we can kiss the rest of our freedoms goodbye.

The Second Amendment isn't about forcing the government to do something. It's like the situation in the Cold War, where both the US and USSR had enough nukes to wipe each other off the face of the planet. We're still here because people were sane enough to not press the button and commit suicide. The fact that there are more than 100,000,000 firearms in circulation in this country similarly guarantees that the government won't do anything too outrageous.

There is a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. The Second Amendment provides a fourth.

__________________

shibshib

*tries to shoo buzzby away from a different type of thread than he thinks he's posting in*

So... then that's a 2nd amendment vote from you, buzzby? Or was it an ironic first amendment support argument (since without it, you wouldn't have the ability to voice your outrage to the masses) lol

How will you organize 100,000,000 guns without the freedom to speak out?

Again, we are talking extreme conditions here... if you had no freedom of speech, then any anti-government speech would quickly be suppressed... maybe to the point that all publications are taken over entirely.

Out of those 100,000,000 guns, how many do you think would be able to not only be sophisticated enough to circumvent the government keeping them quiet, but also go undetected and be able to actually defeat the US government's forces?

On a side note, what is the percentage of americans that have a gun? Obviously 100,000,000 is like 1 in 3 americans... but then again many have more than 1 gun.

SpiralArchitect

Number 3. The beach sounds really appealing right now... it's already snowing around here.... that and I really like fish. I bet Costa Rica has good fish.

Give me liberty or give me death. I want all of my rights, we are all Americans and deserve nothing less.

__________________
.

Buzzby

What do you mean by that? Isn't this thread about choosing whether you'd prefer to lose the First Amendment or the Second Amendment?

What outrage? I was simply stating my position. Also, my ability to post an answer here has no substantive connection to the question.

Who said I would? If you read my post in its entirety, you would see that the existence of 100,000,000 guns practically guarantees that they'll never have to be used in that capacity.

And that would mean that I and millions like me couldn't defend ourselves and our freedoms with the firearms we have? Why? Do you think that the resistance in France during WWII was stopped because the Nazis controlled the press and public speech?

How much sophistication is required to be a deterrent to an overreaching government? You simply don't get heavy with millions of armed citizens. There are a lot more armed citizens than cops and military. Americans are independent enough that not many cops or soldiers would be willing to shoot fellow citizens because they were told to do so. A soldier's or a police officer's primary allegiance is not to his commanding officers, it's to the Constitution of the United States.

 

troublemaker_42

To me, its simple...without the Second, theres no guarantee of the First. An armed populace may someday be all that saves this country from its own government. The Secind Amendment is, as Buzzby said, one of the many checks and balances ensuring our government views us as citizens and not as subjects. Without the Second, theres no gurantee of ANY of the other rights being free from retraction or manipulation. If it comes down to "us vs. them" I'd much rather "us" be armed than the alternative.


Gun Ownership: The Numbers: Their Aim is True: Taking stock of America's real gun - Reason Magazine

*Granted, these numbers reflect 1999-2000, but the in-depth breakdown was somehting I thought was importqnt in regards to your specific question*


AS you can see, out of roughly 305 Million citizens, roughly 77-90 million are armed, making it about 1 in 4 people that own a gun, at least according the estimates, with the average gun owners owning 4 guns. While that may technicaly be true, in my household, guns are basically community property. Any gun that crosses the threshold of my home is immediately expalined to my wife, as in what caliber it is, how its used, how to check to see if its loaded, loading/unloading procedures, etc. I want and expect her to be able to defend herslef if the need calls for it. Also, whiler records may not reflect my purchase of several forearms, I do indeed own them.... many have been recieved as gifts and whatnot. Accurately determining the number of people who own guns is all but impossible to pinpoint exactly, becasue theres no central registry, which, IMO, is a good thing. SHouold the 2nd Amendment someday fail us, and agents are dispatched to my home, I don't need them to have a checklist documenting every firearm I own, to be sure they don't miss any. Thats why I oppose aboth a central registry or a national license to own firearms. My "license" was written into the Constitution, or more specifically, the Bill of Rights

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Also by Ted "If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective"

shibshib

I give up on this thread. lol.

Was trying to point out the paradox in a special scenario.

troublemaker_42

You asked a question, and got answers. What more do you want? Just because you don't like the answers doesn't invalidate the question, and the answers given certainly apply to the situation you proposed in the OP. What did YOU want out of this thread? If its not what you got, maybe you should have phrased the question differently Also, how are you "staying neutral" when you dismiss the anwsers you asked us for? I don't know about you, but when i post something, I WANT responses, while you are seemingly disappointed that you got them. I guess I don't understand why youd ask a question, then expect to be able to dictate what types of answers you got. That seems utterly pointless and actually biased, IMO. If we can't answer honestly and freely (at least in a fashion suitable to you) why ask for our input? My post even gave the answer to a secondary question you posed:

I answered that about as fully as could reasonably be expected, given the fact that theres NO definitive answer. I gave you all the information at my disposal in answering your question, yet you "give up" on this thread? If your question failed to produce the information you wanted, I'd seriously consider the wording of said question, instead of dismissing the reponses you DID get. What, may I ask, DID you intend to ask, because as far as I can tell, both Buzzby and myself provided answers to the question you posed?

shibshib

My goal was more for like... an interesting discussion between the relationship of the 1st and 2nd amendment...

Not a "RAWWRRR I LOVE GUNS RAOOOARR!!!!!!" thread

troublemaker_42

and thats what I tried to offer you....you simply chose to interpret it the way you did. You asked a question, and I provided answers. I cannot help it if you don't agree with or approve of said answers, but I provided them all the same.