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

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

And don't be a coward and say neither. That's not an option in this poll.

1st amendment - right to free speech

2nd amendment - right to bear arms

[lightbulb27]

right to bare arms. gotta be able to speak and protest.

the arms are hardly useful anyway as property rights diminished.

The RBA comes in handy when you've got someone crazy in power that wants to wipe you out or force you to do things you don't want. ... happened many times in history.

[OtterMan68]

Lot of countries with no second amendment but are safer than the US and are not dictatorships. Freedom of expression, press, religion, petition, and assembly are how change is made

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

This is the correct answer in my opinion. A few answers have said you need guns to defend the first but it's simply not true.

[Ms_Facesitter]

Arms one. There is still martial arts.

[DrPepper12]

I think this says it all. These people don't know how dumb they sound going up against us military. Plus, their *back the blue* is bullshit too. Who do they think is allegedly coming for their guns? Bunch a dumfuks with micro dicks so the ammosexuals buy big phalluses to compensate.

[RetroReviews]

I will speak the truth in season out of season even if it was outlawed even under the threat of death. I will die on that Hill of the truth that belief in Jesus is the only way you can have eternal life. Romans 10:9

[Juxtapose]

The second amendment covers situations where my 11 years of martial arts training will not save my life. I would rather be alive if I am faced with a bear or multiple men with baseball bats thank you very much!

[Juxtapose]

On the hierarchy of basic needs, breathing is pretty basic.

[goaded]

Bear spray is more effective against a bear than a gun. Probably against multiple people, too.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded bear spray is severely limited in range and if you are being attacked at range yourself you are going to want a gun. A gun is pretty versatile as well and high caliber ammunition can take care of bears.

416 Remington Mag (Recoil reducer recommended) Winchester Model 70 Alaskan (.375 H&H)

[BoopBoopBeep]

@goaded Funny, I never carried bear spray in a war zone.

[Juxtapose]

@BoopBoopBeep Germans literally can't even keep a baseball bat by their bed and defend themselves with it because the judge will say they were too ready to fight xD

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Juxtapose
another reason I'm glad to be in the U. S.

When people broke into my mom's house I don't want her having to unlock her bat from three rooms over then giving them first swing to make it fair.

[Juxtapose]

@BoopBoopBeep castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are amazing as fuck. Bless the USA.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Juxtapose Yeah I'd take Iraq over Germany any day of the week. Well... if I could bounce for summers. F those sucked.

[Juxtapose]

@BoopBoopBeep I have not been in the military but I have family who have. It sounds brutal, especially given that I have strong northerner blood and love the cold!

But hey, I would rather deal with bullets too rather than some tyrannical government.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Juxtapose Yep and at least when the crooks came around MFs could shoot them and call it a day.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose I must remember to avoid bears with rifles or bows. How, exactly, do bears attack at range? Or "multiple men with baseball bats" for that matter.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded are you being obtuse on purpose?

Obviously when I'm referring to ranged attackers I am referring to people with ranged weapons. And also multiple men with baseball bats? You want to take them out before they get close to you. If they are within 20 feet of you and you have a 1 second draw time? You will be too late.

[goaded]

And yet your opinion was this: "The second amendment covers situations where my 11 years of martial arts training will not save my life. I would rather be alive if I am faced with a bear or multiple men with baseball bats thank you very much!"

In either case, you're better off with a non-lethal weapon that affects an area. Nothing in there says anything about other people with guns. The best defence against getting shot is to live in a country where almost nobody has a gun. (Much like living in a country without any bears means you don't have to be afraid of being attacked by one!)

[Juxtapose]

@goaded false. Russia has pretty strict gun control laws but unlike Japan they have way more violence. It is not guns that causes it.

[Juxtapose]

And also there are guns I can load with flashbang shells, rubber shells and other options. It's the Governor and it uses.410 shotgun shells.

[Juxtapose]

So I had the full range of non-lethal options and lethal options.

[goaded]

Yeah, Russia has a homicide rate of 6.8 to the US's 6.4. I was obviously referring to sane countries (where a life isn't comparable to a sack of potatoes or a washing machine), where the homicide rate is around 1. There are plenty of countries like that.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded Germany is not a same country.

[Juxtapose]

Sane

[goaded]

Whatever you say. A murder rate 1/5th of the US makes Germany a pretty good place to live.

By the way, Russia's firearm related murder rate is a fifth of the US's.
worldpopulationreview.com/.../gun-deaths-by-country

[Juxtapose]

@goaded you guys literally don't even have the freedom to publicly deny the Holocaust or flip off a police officer. You can't even record somebody beating you up to use that as evidence and you can't have cameras on your property to catch people vandalizing your cars. Your country sucks.

[goaded]

Why would anyone want to insult the memory of six million victims of a fascist regime? Why would you think it's a good idea to deny reality? What happens to people who disrespect the police in America?

[Juxtapose]

Wow what a authoritarian attitude! I'm surprised those words even left your mind and went to the keyboard! Seriously?

My rights do not end where your feelings begin. Under proper free speech I can offend you all I want and you know what's the worst that will happen? You would feel annoyed but then get over it. That's not worth throwing someone in fucking prison.. have you lost your mind?

You can flip a cop off in public and they cannot arrest you for flipping them off. They have to find some other excuse.

[goaded]

I bet they will find "some other excuse", though, possibly up to "I believed they were an imminent threat", which apparently allows them to shoot you.

Anyone would have to be pretty stupid to get anything but a warning or a fine for speech in Germany; anyone going to prison makes headline news for a reason (usually because that's exactly what the criminal wants).

We're not talking about people's feelings, we're talking about encouragement to repeat the worst chapter of Germany history. Words matter.

[Juxtapose]

Dude I have ridden around in a police cruiser and interviewed numerous police officers. I had police officers in my dojo as well, the German perception of American police is wrong. You were thinking of hillbilly town police, not nice suburban town police. America is almost as big as fucking gear up, open up your mind and stop looking at god damn stereotypes. Are all the damn cops in Europe the damn same? If they are then you guys are saaaad.

The fact that you EVEN have to get a warning or a fine in general for speech proves that you don't have free speech in Germany. Meanwhile I can walk down my street and sing a song comprised entirely of slurs and there is nothing the cops can do about it. I can even openly deny the Holocaust in front of a cop if I wanted! 🇺🇲😎🇺🇲 I don't even like Holocaust deniers!

If you guys think restricting free speech will prevent another Holocaust then you don't know what caused the Holocaust. Straight up.

[Juxtapose]

I have no idea how voice to text did this but it is not gear up, it is Europe. The USA is almost as big as Europe.

[goaded]

It seems to me that the only difference between free speech in Germany and free speech in the US is that the laws against lies and defamation are criminal rather than civil. I don't understand why you're so keen to lie or be lied to.

“In this world. . .

It's Heaven when:
The French are chefs
The British are police
The Germans are engineers
The Swiss are bankers
And the Italians are lovers

It's Hell when:
The English are chefs
The Germans are police
The French are engineers
The Swiss are lovers
And the Italians are bankers.”
― Hidekaz Himaruya, Hetalia: Axis Powers, Vol. 2

[Juxtapose]

No, people can legally flip people off or say bigoted things. They can have deeply unpopular opinions and be vocal. People can sincerely insult you, etc. I am all for people saying what is really on their mind.

In the USA you can't:

1. Knowingly lie about someone on purpose and damage them in some way from it.

2. Threaten someone clearly.

In Germany you can't publicly deny the Holocaust (which I know happened and I support the Jews fully against Nazis and Hamas 👍). Meanwhile in the USA Neo-Nazis, the KKK, anarchists, etc are protected by police if they non-violently protest. Those groups are still taboo and rightfully criticized to oblivion but the government protects the peace. It's a good arrangement.

[goaded]

Well, you "can legally flip people off" in Germany, just not the police. I don't know what limits there are on saying bigoted things. ISTR that you're entitled to use reasonable force to defend your honour, too; I think I gave a link to that in another conversation we were having about free speech.

"In the USA you can't:

1. Knowingly lie about someone on purpose and damage them in some way from it."
That's a civil matter in the US, though, isn't it? So the victim would have to sue.

"2. Threaten someone clearly."
That's criminal in both countries.

"In Germany you can't publicly deny the Holocaust"
Correct. I guess because it's lying about the victims and harming all Jewish people. Not to mention which country perpetrated it.

"Meanwhile in the USA Neo-Nazis, the KKK, anarchists, etc are protected by police if they non-violently protest."
Same as in Germany, with the exception of using Nazi symbols which are forbidden. www.opendemocracy.net/.../

It's just a societal difference on precisely where the lines should be drawn and how they should be enforced.

[loveslongnails]

People would still arm themselves with or without the "legal" right to, so the 2nd amendment is not only outdated but it's irrelevant.

[exitseven]

without freedom of speech a gun will not help.

[Tstrbrainer]

Not American, but if I was I'd be more okay with losing the first. (But I mistakenly chose the other poll option).
With the second amendment, first already follows

[KostasKouvalis]

That's an easy one, "Right to recreational shooting"

[DextroShade]

If we still have the 2nd we can take back the 1st, but not the other way around.

[handsomelad70]

First. I see no absolute need to be armed, at least in my case.

[debtfree_oneyear]

I live in Canada and we have no second amendment and I LOVE it!

[msc545]

I don't care about being able to bear arms - free speech is far more important.

[Widower2022]

1st amendment - right to free speech - I'll find other ways to express myself.

[dinojames22]

Human history tells us that If you loose the second one, you will loose the first one (and many others).

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

So you'd rather have free speech

[dinojames22]

The second one is the more important of the two. It ensures you will have the first one (and the ones that follow it).

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Well in this scenario you'd be losing the first but you'd have your guns by your choice.

[dinojames22]

If you keep the second, you can fight for the first (as well as retain the ability to defend your family). If you foolishly give up the second, you will loose that.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Ok, I'll just chalk you up to giving up the first in this scenario.

[jahaims]

The first is useless without the second.

[gorydetails]

I’ll keep the second to protect the 1st.

[OddBeMe]

Wow. I’m…in shock. And appalled.

[Anonymous]

Both , I don't care

[eagle1951]

not getting my guns