First Amendment vs. Second Amendment

We all encounter a variety of arguments against the Second Amendment every day. Klint’s blog article below has some of those common arguments and great rebuttal questions to make the people you talk with think through their position in a more positive manner.

Which Amendment do you think is the more important?

  • First Amendment
  • Second Amendment
  • Both are equally as important

0 voters

3 Likes

Going with 2nd as most important. In the extreme, it’s the one that’s going to allow us to defend all the rest.

Excellent article… definitely going to use the “if only Trump was allowed” one.

4 Likes

To me this is sort of like asking which is more important…the Constitution or the Military. The Constitution is what establishes us as a great Country and gives us righteousness (core moral center) to use our Military to protect it (vs a military used to protect a dictatorship). Without one, (the Constitution) you have nothing worth protecting, without the other (the Military) you have nothing to protect the greatness created.

The first amendment is what establishes the Constitution as a great document and framework to establish a government (it’s core morale center) and the second amendment is what outlines the right to protect all the other rights there within the Constitution.

You need both. Without the first amendment, the 2nd amendment doesn’t have as much moral standing…without the second the first (and the rest) can quickly be taken away as there is nothing to defend them with.

A note of clarification…the ability to defend one’s self is a natural right and as such the second amendment has moral standing on it’s own, it’s just that the first amendment amplifies that standing.

All of this of course is just my opinion.

6 Likes

We are definitely on the same page here. I agree with you Zee 100%.

1 Like

Very good article. Not to get too political, but liberal logic will almost always eats itself if allowed to go to it’s logical end.

1 Like

Bingo! @Zee. The 2nd Defends the 1st.

1 Like

“WHY” is everyone fighting against these Guns laws, when the Government has “NO JURISDICTION” to legislate in the area of the Bill of Rights???

James Madison “ENUMERATED” powers the government could have to legislate, and the major reason for that was to “PREVENT” government from legislating any laws that would deny the Freedoms/Rights citizens had give themselves.

Unlike the Magna Carta, where the Government gave citizens some freedoms/rights,

American Citizen gave themselves whatever freedoms/right they wanted “THEN” restricted government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Who’s dumb enough to think the fathers of the constitution, who wanted citizens to “Keep and Bear arms” to prevent any government, foreign or domestic from becoming tyrants,

would also “Enumerate” power to that government to legislate their freedom/rights away from them, especially the one right they could use to defend their Freedoms/Rights, the Second Amendment.

Just one case would end and nullify all laws regarding guns.

I’d suggest you read the “Federalist Papers”, and what James Madison said about this subject.

"Exactly what was the intent and purpose behind the framers of the Constitution including
the second Amendment in the Bill of Rights???

At the time the Constitution was being written only 9 states were willing to ratify it
without a Bill of Rights.

The common fear was that government would become like those of Europe, setting up a
King, Emperor or Dictator.

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Papers No. 29, he wrote,
“Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it
makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all
times”.

James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the
intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a short exert:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal
to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the
devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the
State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the
danger.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the
people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of".

Alexander Hamilton also wrote,
“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any
magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while
there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of
arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their
fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a time when the citizens might have to fight
against their own government in order to keep their liberties.

The second Amendment was never about personal defense as it was to be the
“Backbone" of a “National Strategy” written within the Constitution for armed citizens to
always be the ultimate “National Defense” of their Country, Constitution, Liberties and
form of Government.

Personal weapons capable of fighting such a war are a necessary part of that defense.

James Madison noted that the power of government had granted the liberties in the
Magna Carta, however,America had set the example of liberty granting the power of
Government.

The liberty of the people had granted their own freedoms, and the power of government
to govern, however with Government restricted to those areas “Enumerated” and
without any authority to legislate any laws concerning the "Bill of Rights” citizens had
given themselves.

Only a “Constitutional Amendment” can change the Constitution, not legislated law.

When “Rights” are itemized in a document of agreement, such as a labor contract or our
Constitution,

Law has a tendency to interpret the Rights as being restricted to those items itemized.

Whereas, If the Rights are not itemized, the field is wide open to interpretation as to what
those Rights might include.

In writing the Constitution, many opposed placing an itemized Bill of Rights in the
Constitution for this very reason.

The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those
opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of
fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all
rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument
that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.

Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House
of Representatives.

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular
exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not
placed in that enumeration;
and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were
intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure.

This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a
bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I
have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
resolution.”

It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a
rule of construction,
making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the
powers of the national government in areas not enumerated,

Madison had written to Jefferson:
“My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed
as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have
not viewed it in an important light because I conceive that in a certain degree

. . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers
are granted.

because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most
essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of
conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more
than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.”

Here was their problem,

If they itemized the Rights of Citizens, Government would be free to legislate every
Freedom those Rights did not itemize.

But they didn’t want a government without limitation on it’s powers, so, Madison
explained the solution to the problem was to limit Government to the areas of
“Enumerations” (itemized) powers listed.

. “the rights in question (BoR) are reserved by the manner in which the federal
powers are granted”. (Restricting government to enumerated powers)

NINTH AMENDMENT
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.

By Enumerating the areas government was given to govern, the “Bill of Rights” would be
protected from Government disparage those rights as well as other rights/freedoms which
were not itemized in the Bill of Rights.

This was the argument James Madison made for protecting the Bill of Rights, and other
rights, from Government legislating in the area of the “Bill of Rights”.

Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 84 ask the question:
“Why even include a Bill of rights/freedom of press, if Government can not legislate
outside the enumeration of powers granted to it”??

The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation of the Constitution and restriction on
Government in the Miranda vs Arizona decision.

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

This restriction on Government’s authority applies to the States as well as the Federal
Government.

In the decision of Davis v. Wechsler, the court stated:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice”. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]”

Article VI
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of
the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby,

any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

States have no authority to re-interpret the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Second
Amendment from State to State as we’re seeing with Red flags laws.

America doesn’t have a “Nobility class”, everyone is “Equal”, Citizens must suffer the
same “jeopardy of life” as Law enforcement and the Military to keep and secure our
Rights.

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or
guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general
deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Guns rights have already been affirmed, by the Constitution and by former Courts, but
today no one is abiding by them.

Unless someone does act to enforce the law, the “DUTY” will fall on the citizens to use
their Second Amendment for what it was intended.

Thomas Jefferson stated this idea clearly in the very document that started our nation, the
Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
But this really isn’t about Gun Rights,

But about both Federal and State government attempting to seize powers not
granted to them by the Constitution.

And the ramification of that will affect the liberties of every single person in
America”.

It’s been said that to interpret the Constitution correctly, one must interpret it in the same
frame of mind that wrote it, Jefferson said the same thing.

“On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Abraham Lincoln said, “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both
Congresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the
men who pervert the Constitution”.

And Citizens possess that “authority”, by use of the Second Amendment to force
compliance with the Constitution and without penalty of law.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
Constitutional rights [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946]”

Any person who has ever swore an oath to uphold the “Constitution” will have to break
that oath to oppose citizens defending their “Constitution” and “Bill of Rights”.

3 Likes

I don’t think it’s the Federal Government that’s trying to take away are Second Amendment. But it’s the State Government. I hate to say it, but look at Texas. People are carrying around AR-15 in open carry on their body. So much for CCW. In Texas if you live alone the Texas and Mexico, I would have a AR-15 with 10mags. and ready to use it. I would have one in my Truck. But to carry it in a City are Town is nuts. And I carry all the time I have one in tube and 14 in the mag. Plus I carry two Meg. That’s 43 rounds ain’t that more then I need, I would hope so.( RESPONSIBLY ARMED AMERICAN)

Larry, you have to ask the question,

“WHY” is everyone fighting these laws from state to state when “ONE CASE” could stop all infringement on “ANY” of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment???

Rights explicitly stated in a “Legal Document” (Supreme law of the land/Constitution) can not be altered/changed/ amended except by a “Renegotiation of the document”, that means a “Constitutional Amendment” is required,

otherwise anything altered/changed/amended by “one party” (Government) at the objection of the “other party” (Citizens) is a violation of Law.

Government never gave citizens the bill of rights, citizen gave the bil of rights to themselves, and restricted government from interfering in those rights by enumerating the powers government “COULD HAVE”,

But today, there’s to much “MONEY” to be made by promoting “Fear of Government” and selling arms/ammo, AND INSURANCE.

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny,
When government fears the people, there is liberty”.

Actually, citizens are being sold down the river by both sides.

2 Likes

My opinion is that without the 2nd the 1st would have been gutted long ago.

The 2nd is the force that “We The People” have to protect the rest when all peaceful means have been exhausted.

Think about the context of the times in which the BOR was drafted.

We had just fought a bloody revolution of mostly citizen soldiers largely armed with the weapons and gear they brought from home and defeated the largest and best standing army on the planet at the time, not to mention the Navy that was the envy and feared by all other countries of the era.

Without those citizen soldiers we could have never even fought them to a stalemate and the revolution would have been crushed in weeks or months.

Yes, we needed help for final victory in the end from the French navy and a small contingent of French troops but that was after we had already defeated most of his army. The FR were able to end the King’s ability to rapidly mobilize his troops up and down the eastern Sea Board and conduct classic encirclement and flanking maneuvers and in the end won the chess game forcing Cornwallis to either see his ships destroyed an his only means of escape cut off in a ground battle he was losing badly or surrender in a humiliating defeat.

2 Likes

The courts granted themselves the ability to change the constituion by “creative reinterpretation”.

Unfortunately it would take a clarifying amendment to correct that and it’s never going to pass.

2 Likes

Excellent work! :+1:

2 Likes

I genuinely hope we can use diplomacy to avoid such things. However, should it ever come to that I would much rather that responsibility fall on my shoulders than my childrens. I think you mistake hope and the desire to avoid such things for a lack of integrity. Some day it may come to that, but I pray it doesn’t.

2 Likes

I hear that clearly.
And … as a child of a father who did that duty, I’m ok with that responsibility falling on my shoulders as well.

See I happen to believe that each person is responsible for their own, whether that’s family or spirituality. I also happen to believe, strongly in not forcing ones beliefs on another. Your words indicate you’re willing to do just that.

1 Like

@Thomas22 I’m having more than a bit of trouble understanding your point. What is it you think I’m thinking? Or doing?
I don’t recall having expressed any opinions on sex at all, so you’ve completely lost me here.

“The First Law of self is Self-Preservation, and the Second Amendment more than the First, provides the ensured way that the law of Self-Preservation is Self-enforced.”
-Ronald Holley

1 Like

My GrandMother use to say:

“you either got it, or you don’t”.

Meaning if you won’t stand up for one thing, you won’t stand up for anything.

There’s a Country Song that says pretty much the same thing,

“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.

People today don’t have a “Moral Code” they live by, whatever is the most convenient way to avoid confronting a problem head on, is the way they go.

Where would America be today if the people of 1776 had not had the “INTEGRITY” and “MORAL CODE” to stand up and confront the problem head on???

People today can find more “EXCUSES” for doing “NOTHING”, than something.

Like GMother said, “You either got it or your don’t”.

@Thomas22, the First Amendment gives people the freedom of speech, religion, and to express themselves.

In this Community we respect all views as long as they’re expressed respectfully.

You are expressing your beliefs, and I respect that. I would caution you that this is not a forum to damn people who do not agree with you or have a different lifestyle choice.

Jesus’ one command was to love one another as I have loved you. Ours is not to judge.

People stood up to religious and personal persecution when this country was founded and the founding fathers reiterated our natural born freedoms.

There are many different religions, backgrounds and lifestyles here. And they are all welcome to be here as long as they show respect to others.

2 Likes

You can lead a horse to water, but not make him drink. The same with Christianity, or any other subject that is open to opinions. If you try to make the horse drink, you get kicked. If you are patient, he may or may not get a drink. It’s just your job to lead him to the water. I’m a Christian m and a deacon in my church. I believe we should absolutely tell everyone the “Good News” but we have to be respectful about it. “Vengeance is MINE, thus says the Lord.”

1 Like