PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on 1st and 2nd Amendments...


savage1r
08-03-2012, 12:17 PM
What if we turned the wording around?

VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeNWnrJRGns)

speedrrracer
08-03-2012, 12:54 PM
useless vid
only those already in agreement will think it's anything but disgusting

nicki
08-03-2012, 1:49 PM
The issue with your video is people who view it will still see the first and second amendments are two separate amendments.

The direction we need to go is to show how the 1st amendment is dependent on the 2nd amendment for it's very survival.

If one actually reads the Declaration of Independence, one will notice that the colonists listed many grievances with the King, those grievances were the justification for taking up arms and starting a war, so they were very big grievances.

After the American Revolution was over and the Colonies created the United States, it is important to look at the bill of rights.

The bill of rights was created to make sure that the new government wouldn't violate the rights of Americans and the listed rights were ones that the government recognized.

There is a big difference between recognizing and granting. The government couldn't grant rights because the social order had been changed where the government got it's power from the people, not the other way around.

The first amendment covers more than free speech, it basically covers all peaceful means to redress grievances with our government servants.

The founding fathers just fought a war and they wanted to ensure that we the people had peaceable means to deal with the government.

Here is the tie in, government's only recognize peaceable means of protest if the people retain violent means to enforce their rights.

The founding fathers knew that standing armies and select militias were dangerous to liberty which is why we have constitutional limits on armies which of course in modern day world is ignored.

The people who oppose gun rights support expansive government power, they are not just hostile to gun rights, they are hostile to "RIGHTS".

The second amendment is more than just an individual right, IMHO, it is a collective duty which basically no longer exists.

It is this failure of understanding our collective duties as Americans and our failure to perform that has significantly contributed to our current problems on a massive scale.

After World War Two when Europe was destroyed and they started their rebuilding program, we basically provided for their national security for decades at our expense.

Personally I think we should have had the European countries base their national defense on a Swiss Style model. It would have been a very cost effective defense for their countries against a feared Soviet Invasion and would have allowed us to significantly scale back our military presence.

Same for Korea, Japan and Taiwan and other countries.

The roots of American Gun Control are racism, once minorities were stripped of gun rights, the rest were easy to take away.

You get the direction that gun rights are civil rights and once you put that civil rights are interdependent on each other, your future videos will improve.

You are doing better than me though

Nicki

sixtringr
08-03-2012, 3:31 PM
I enjoyed the vid. Shows the other side of the faces against freedom!

glockman19
08-03-2012, 4:02 PM
The issue with your video is people who view it will still see the first and second amendments are two separate amendments.

The direction we need to go is to show how the 1st amendment is dependent on the 2nd amendment for it's very survival.

If one actually reads the Declaration of Independence, one will notice that the colonists listed many grievances with the King, those grievances were the justification for taking up arms and starting a war, so they were very big grievances.

After the American Revolution was over and the Colonies created the United States, it is important to look at the bill of rights.

The bill of rights was created to make sure that the new government wouldn't violate the rights of Americans and the listed rights were ones that the government recognized.

There is a big difference between recognizing and granting. The government couldn't grant rights because the social order had been changed where the government got it's power from the people, not the other way around.

The first amendment covers more than free speech, it basically covers all peaceful means to redress grievances with our government servants.

The founding fathers just fought a war and they wanted to ensure that we the people had peaceable means to deal with the government.

Here is the tie in, government's only recognize peaceable means of protest if the people retain violent means to enforce their rights.

The founding fathers knew that standing armies and select militias were dangerous to liberty which is why we have constitutional limits on armies which of course in modern day world is ignored.

The people who oppose gun rights support expansive government power, they are not just hostile to gun rights, they are hostile to "RIGHTS".

The second amendment is more than just an individual right, IMHO, it is a collective duty which basically no longer exists.

It is this failure of understanding our collective duties as Americans and our failure to perform that has significantly contributed to our current problems on a massive scale.

After World War Two when Europe was destroyed and they started their rebuilding program, we basically provided for their national security for decades at our expense.

Personally I think we should have had the European countries base their national defense on a Swiss Style model. It would have been a very cost effective defense for their countries against a feared Soviet Invasion and would have allowed us to significantly scale back our military presence.

Same for Korea, Japan and Taiwan and other countries.

The roots of American Gun Control are racism, once minorities were stripped of gun rights, the rest were easy to take away.

You get the direction that gun rights are civil rights and once you put that civil rights are interdependent on each other, your future videos will improve.

You are doing better than me though

Nicki

The Servant has become our Master

HaloFire
08-03-2012, 4:43 PM
The 1st amendment - specifically the freedom of the press is a safeguard against the 3 branches of govt overstepping their boundaries.

The 2nd amendment is a fail safe intended to remind govt that we are a nation that governs by consent, that govt serves the people, not people serving the govt.

Nicki is correct that the 2nd amendment guarantees ALL other amendments and that it is our duty to protect it.

The reason the 2nd amendment is NOT first is (and this is conjecture) that words are more powerful than guns, ideas are what is fought for, guns are just instruments used to achieve the "idea"

POLICESTATE
08-03-2012, 4:48 PM
Ultimately FORCE is what effects change. Words can inspire and direct force, but ultimately force is what is real. Might makes right and all that.

We have laws (words), but without enFORCEment they are meaningless, look at immigration laws for an example, there of course many many more.

It's a symbiotic relationship, the pen may be mightier than the sword, and you can write some really awesome and inspiring things, but if people won't get off their butt and actually DO something then nothing will happen.




The 1st amendment - specifically the freedom of the press is a safeguard against the 3 branches of govt overstepping their boundaries.

The 2nd amendment is a fail safe intended to remind govt that we are a nation that governs by consent, that govt serves the people, not people serving the govt.

Nicki is correct that the 2nd amendment guarantees ALL other amendments and that it is our duty to protect it.

The reason the 2nd amendment is NOT first is (and this is conjecture) that words are more powerful than guns, ideas are what is fought for, guns are just instruments used to achieve the "idea"

HaloFire
08-03-2012, 5:06 PM
I don't disagree with you policestate, but change through peaceful means is less destructive and that is why 1st amendment is about the freedom of speech/press, and 2nd is the use of force (which is the final means of arbitration).

imagine if we had a civil war or armed insurrection every time we wanted to institute change instead of voting? can you say going no where?

armed conflict may sound like its the only choice but it is not, it should be the last choice. I think hollywood and those that have never seen conflict are all too often quick to romanticize it.

a peaceful exchange of leadership is one of the many mechanisms put in place that really allowed us to prosper, sure we've had our disagreements and even "localized" insurrections/riots/etc. but nothing on a national scale.

POLICESTATE
08-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Don't take what I said to mean that I advocate force or violence to effect change, what I mean is that when the rubber meets the road usually you have force (or the threat of force) behind the impetus for change. Maybe it's in virtually all cases because outside of a few events there has always been force or implied force used. The movement for India's independence is probably the best and largest example of a non-forceful change, of course the British used force to resist the change and in the end it had no effect. Lucky for the Indians.

But yeah most of the time, force or threat of force is what effects change, and people should remember that. Just because one side is trying to be peaceful does not mean the other will be.

We should always be cognizant of that.

Our founding fathers knew this, they tried peaceful means over and over again, only to be met with more and more forceful measures on the part of the British, in the end, it came down to meeting force with force.

I think peaceful means should always be attempted, force is a last resort. Unfortunately for many force seems to be a first means.


I don't disagree with you policestate, but change through peaceful means is less destructive and that is why 1st amendment is about the freedom of speech/press, and 2nd is the use of force (which is the final means of arbitration).

imagine if we had a civil war or armed insurrection every time we wanted to institute change instead of voting? can you say going no where?

armed conflict may sound like its the only choice but it is not, it should be the last choice. I think hollywood and those that have never seen conflict are all too often quick to romanticize it.

a peaceful exchange of leadership is one of the many mechanisms put in place that really allowed us to prosper, sure we've had our disagreements and even "localized" insurrections/riots/etc. but nothing on a national scale.