You have to lose the first amendment or lose the Second Amendment. Which one is more important?

Question

burlen · Accepted Answer

I think putting the First Amendment against the Second Amendment presents a false dilemma and oversimplifies the complex relationship between the First and Second Amendments.

Both amendments are integral to the functioning of a democratic society. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press, while the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Both amendments serve important purposes and are essential to protecting individual liberties and maintaining a balance of power between the government and the people.

The question implies that the loss of one amendment necessarily means the preservation of the other, which is not necessarily true. In reality, the erosion of one amendment may have unintended consequences that impact other constitutional rights and protections.

The interpretation and application of both amendments are subject to ongoing debate and legal interpretation. The Supreme Court has issued rulings that both expand and limit the scope of both the First and Second Amendments, and these interpretations are subject to change over time.

riverrat3 · Accepted Answer

The first amendment is first for a reason

BlondeAndGreenEyed · Accepted Answer

2nd - too many inbred simple minded Americans have guns. They're not just a potential danger to themselves & their relatives, they're borderline unhinged - as obvious by some comments here or elsewhere on GAG involving government or authorities or police - and a very likely danger to society.

Furthermore the 2nd was designed as a milita for the protection of the state & 80% of Americans have guns because they can, not to do anything useful with them.

Hell google images of American gun-totting families you've got some poising with enough weaponary to make a small town's police force jealous... why the fuck do these slackjaws need so many guns. And some of those pieces - like ones equipped with silencers or high-volume semi-automatics - they've absolutely zero need to own.

.

Finally the laws & regulations surrounding guns is far too lax. There's other countries with similar gun owner percentages and the gun violence is not even 1/8th that of America.

Breanna_nonbinary · Accepted Answer

Second amendment should go bye-bye. Many other countries have 86ed they’re gun ownership laws and are better for it. Besides people don’t even have an understanding of the second amendment. They pick and choose the words they want to interpret instead of reading it for face value.

KrakenAttackin · Answer

No brother. These two Amendments are intertwined and mutually supportive. The Founding Fathers wrote the first Amendment and realized how much it would piss off government and that government would want to suppress first Amendment rights. This is why the FF immediately wrote the Second Amendment, to make sure a corrupt government could not suppress the people's first Amendment rights.

There is no "one or the other", they are the heart and lungs of this countries basis of freedom.

slatyb · Answer

The first. Many people live happily in countries where gun ownership is strictly regulated. Countries where there is no freedom of expression are miserable.

Mangospacho · Answer

The second amendment protects the first amendment and the second amendment is meaningless without the first. It’s like asking whether you’d rather lose a hand or a finger - a finger can’t function without a hand and a hand is useless without fingers.

OddBeMe · Answer

I don’t see these false dichotomies as helpful. I don’t want to lose the 2a honestly. Because it’s in the bill of rights. I’d just like some perspective on how fckin dangerous our country is compared to others without a 2a.

FilmGuy93 · Answer

The first. In the words of Dave Chapelle; the second amendment is there in case the first doesn’t work out.

Potteplante · Answer

Second definetly - but now I don't have the rights to bear arms as it is and never felt the need to do so.

AviatorTom · Answer

That's never going to happen, but the First Amendment is more important, and in fact, provides a basis for the Second Amendment.

NostalgiaSenpi · Answer

I'll accept losing the second. I never held a gun in my life.

Anonymous · Answer

I’m tempted to say the 2nd is more important but we’ve evolved to a point where citizen militias with common firearms would be no match against the US military. The days of that being an effective safeguard have probably passed.

ThomasDavid1989 · Answer

Seeing as how I don't want to own a gun, the second

BradBoy · Answer

First is more importanf

NathanDavis · Answer

money goes over both, quite often

exitseven · Answer

The Second Amendment is more important. If you are well armed , nobody can shut you up.

You have to lose the first amendment or lose the Second Amendment. Which one is more important?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

If you were forced to lose one, which of these two amendments would you be more ok with losing?

You have to lose the first amendment or lose the Second Amendment. Which one is more important?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

If you were forced to lose one, which of these two amendments would you be more ok with losing?

We're glad to see you liked this post.