Which is more important, the first or second amendment?

Question

"important" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Answer 1

The second because it can be used to enforce the first!

Answer 2

I like em' both. One is just as important than the next. But the second amendment runs chills down my spine. I think this is important in the here and now. Note the words well regulated. One definition is to adjust for acurate and proper functioning. Kinda like it should be someones job to get it together within our borders and even though it might be a little off we can still salvage it. Training and education. What's this for? So we can gloat and lord it over people? No, the opposite, " To the security of a free state." Sounds anti-terrorist to me...

Answer 3

The First Amendment, so long as we have the right to protest and make our views known, we can protect our right to bear arms. Having Second Amendment rights are worthless, if you cant argue to protect the right to keep them.

There is probably a good reason for the First Amendment being the first.

Answer 4

The violently debated 3rd Amendment.

Answer 5

The precedence of number could be used to argued that the first is more important than the second. But consider: If the 2nd is stripped away and then the first, how could you reclaim either?

If the 2nd remains in place, it would be difficult to strip away either.

Answer 6

Im a big fan of the "Rights reserved to the states" amendment

Answer 7

The Third Amendment, because I don't want soldiers sleeping on my sofa.

Answer 8

The first because one voice can become thousands and no matter how strong the government gets with our voice the people will always be stronger.

Answer 9

An amusing, but meaningless and rhetorical question.

Are you are talking about the ORIGINAL U.S., which existed for about 200 years as authorized by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc? The one's written so concisely and clearly that
for 200 years nearly every literate adolescent or older of functioning mental capacity, UNDERSTOOD most of it with a consistency that is amazing.
The one where:
the very first "right" of our citizens,
the very first law of this nation
the very first sentence of our Bill of (genuine) Rights,
reads;
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A right to address a PRIMARY reason people felt they needed a United States?
A right that is intended beyond any argument to prevent this government from designating a CHURCH; NOT RELIGION or FAITH i.e. NOT christianity, or judeo-christian, but something like oh, say ANGLICAN a.k.a. church of England!)
And further to prevent the government from suppressing or oppressing the free exercise of religion(S)?

It isn't even in force. How can it even have a priority?

THAT question is moot. The text is still there. And the Bill of Rights is still CALLED law. But, reality doesn't care how consumed you are by your illusion. If every person on the planet starts saying our White House is green; it isn't.

So if you are talking about "separation of church and state", the Newspeak 1st amendment right, which is used for little else but SUPPRESSING and PROHIBITING all visible crosses, prayers, creshes, bibles? (if they can persuade one single person to be "offended",,, democracy?)
Preventing people from saying "bless you" or "Merry Christmas"? (sensitivity and tolerance?)
Prohibiting any expression or display in view or sight of the public of the words or principles of 10 descriptions of fundamental good and decent behaviour as accepted by 5000 years of all of Judeo-Christian and I believe Islamic faith? Endorsement is prosecuted. (freedom of speech?)

Well that isn't in ANY of the amendments; or any other founding documents or legal code prior to somewhere in the past 3 decades. And as such, discussing it's priority is kind of screwy, isn't it?
Truth is it has no LEGITIMACY, so it should not HAVE a priority. Honest people would not even acknowledge it.
Reality is ignorant and deceitful people have imposed it by force, and it has authority and force, screw legitimacy; do you really think your opinion of its priority matters?

There is a very simple reason they are having a harder time with the Second Amendment; those folks have guns. They REFUSE to be STUPID and let others "think" for them. They are not permitting a mindless parroted propaganda slogan to brainwash their right away; the real words work just fine, thank you. Their restraint is provided by their CHARACTER (a lost concept), NOT our social contract. Contracts are only valid if all parties comply. The name calling and vilifying by drones does little more than cause headaches.

So it's a pissing contest; and right now a stale mate.

The gun guys are tolerating the church and speech crap. But, the guns are staying. Talk, legislate, tantrum all you want.

The speech guys can't get the guns with name calling, bullying or stigmatizing as they did with religious FREEDOM; that only required sufficient passive permission from enough people to outnumber the opposition. But the "deal with the devil" made by the mob of fools was essentially, "blah, blah, blah, and I don't have to do anything but occasionally be stupid? If I proxy my democratic "say" to you, you won't even make me think? Just grunt once a ***** about folks. And when someone tries to get me to think about what is happening, dont' do it? GREAT?" It's so simple! Equality is accomplshed by segregation and discrimination, because they said so. And we can jail and institutionalize people for "hating" someone or "not liking" certain kinds of people. The part about being impossible to know, let alone prove what someone is thinking is fixed; THEY will tell me what you were thinking. And you can get me new rights; all I have to do say that I have it as often as I can? This is SIMPLE. I'll get all my freinds to do it too. Have we got 51% yet?

Proxied populous force doesn't work for rewriting the 2nd amendment. It isn't going to be done without a significant use of force in some manner. You can manipulate the fools in the stupid army in many ways. But the deal was, as long as they don't have to DO anything, not even think. Even a great story threatening their self interests will no longer help; even if simple enough to be understood without thought. They've been trained not to even do anything for themselve's. They will ***** constantly. They may write some letters. They would love to sue; but have no grounds. The gun guys are not even interested in doing anything to THEM. They might even vote, which could slowly change legislation. But again, they DO have a 2nd amendment, they know what it says, they know what it MEANS, and lower authorities can pound sand.

So basicly, the backup plan is working.
Plan A, speech, worked fine for 200 years. It required little more than a significant portion (not even all) of the population to be HONEST, THOUGHTFUL decent human beings; we no longer qualify.
So, its a good thing those guys wrote a plan B.

Answer 10

without the 2nd there is no 1st
both are taking big hits as of late