Which is more important, the First Amendment or the Second Amendment?

[msc545]

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I would actually abolish both amendments if I had my way.

1st amendment reasoning:

I don't believe you should have a right to practice just any random religion in the world, and neither did the founders either. Many religions originally practiced both animal sacrifices and even human sacrifice, so clearly "freedom of religion" could not allow those religions, nor should we allow Satanism nor anything like that, because by definition satanism is opposed to God in the first place.

I don't believe in "free speech" per se, since everyone in present civilization is a liar and false accuser in the first place. Some research suggests the average person tells at least 2 lies per minute during typical conversation. It's a wonder our civilization survives at all in these conditions.

2nd Amendment reasoning:

It should be illegal for private citizens to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, simply because those were designed for killing other humans in warfare. There is no good reason for private citizens to own them, in particular since small arms are largely obsolete in real modern warfare. You're not going to stop a chinese or russian invasion using machine guns, because if they beat the USA's active Navy and Air Force, your machine guns aren't going to slow them down either.

Basically, I think both the 1st and 2nd amendment should be abolished. You shouldn't have "Freedom of press" either unless you can prove what you are stating with physical or logical evidences. Most of what passes for "News" on the internet and television is HERESAY and is inadmissible in an existing court of law already.

I definitely think the 5th amendment should be abolished, because you take an Oath on the stand to tell the Whole Truth so help you God, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to plead the 5th during a criminal proceeding.

[goaded]

Amendments are the whole reason the US has lasted 250 years. If you can't change things peacefully, there's only one other option.

[msc545]

And another question you asked whether or not people would vote for you if you were to run for office. This kind of reasoning if you want to call it reasoning is exactly why not.

[msc545]

Of course, you would be in favor of abolishing both the First and Second Amendments because you think you know better than absolutely everybody else, and nobody can tell you differently.

[888theGreat]

1st for me but people say you can't have 1st without 2nd. But our fathers must have thought 1 was more important than 2

[itss_lily]

obviously the first

[lightbulb27]

that's a toughie... you can't have the first without the 2nd. If you have the 2nd but not the first, I guess you are still safe enough from coyotes and bullies and ya got a bullet for yourself if it goes real bad.

I see people do ok with no 2nd amendment but guess what, they ain't got much left of the first either. They are prisoners in a sense... even with gates up around their homes. Free to go about, but gotta be careful. That's modern day France and England.

I guess the 2nd, but its close. Its that little bit of "Fear of God" put into others that gives em that little extra "ugh... I'd like to screw that guy over, but I just can't".

Be nice if we was all nice to each other, but take a hard look at the world. It isn't all roses. Take away the guns, it still ain't roses.

China is pretty good though... if you don't mind being monitored 100% time and limited in speech.

Maybe the issue is really deeper in the human souls...

[NathanDavis]

the first...

you can't have a second one... without the first

[Sevenpointfive]

1. the right to talk

2. the right to back it up lol

[MrChinaski]

We have neither set of rights in Australia and it's a box of fluffy ducks so far.

[6942Dantheman]

2nd, because without that, we become the UK and get arrested for speaking our minds.

[Alex-Snow]

The first