The First Amendment to the US Constitution grants us
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and
Freedom of and from Religion.
The Second Amendment grants us the RIght to Bear Arms.
When these conflict -- and they do -- how should we decide
what actions to take to protect every American's rights?
2006-06-17 01:07:27 · 4 answers · asked by David Y 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The amendments are numbered in a
specific order for a reason.
I'll rephrase this question elsewhere.
2006-06-17 03:11:14 · update #1
WHOA!! BACK UP !!
Check the 'Bill of Rights' in your history book ,they are CO-EQUAL. The fore fathers wrote the BILL OF RIGHTS in the order of importance to them. without speach and arms all the others are meaningless,how could you protest or protect the other rights?
No dictator in human history ever failed to limit speach and the possesion of arms
Look up the Magna Carta in the encyclopedia
2006-06-17 01:32:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
In what possible way can these conflict? Both simply tell the government what they cannot restrict. Neithe puts any restrictions on citizens! None of the Bill of Rights restrict the people, only the FEDERAL government.
The second amendment is there to assure that when the government violates the First, or any other, that we are capable of resisting. Are we really, today, capable of armed resistance? Or has our "representative" government "infringed" to the point of elimination?
2006-06-17 02:36:37 · answer #2 · answered by Thorbjorn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only way they conflict is in an artsy fartsy sorta way. So thats just stupid.
2006-06-17 01:21:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Could you give some examples of how they would conflict?
2006-06-17 01:24:17 · answer #4 · answered by hunter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋