You decide
2007-04-02 05:40:15 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course you realize that the people who rant and blither on (the NeoLib Nancy PLousy's of the world" and scream fire in a crowded theatre, all the while touting their "Freedom of Speech rights".
Are the same ones that are destroying our "Right to bear arms" in city's like San Francisco where they have allready sucessfully banned guns and the only ones shooting now are the bad guys and members of congress.
2007-04-02 05:57:31 · update #1
Right to bear arms....talk is cheap.
2007-04-02 05:44:36 · answer #1 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actions speak louder then words in opposing tyranny, and which is better to take action with? And which will guarentee the others preservation? They are somewhat interdependent.
The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependant completely upon the moral stature of it's user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, because a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.
2007-04-02 05:47:05 · answer #2 · answered by Socrates 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pretty balanced I'd say being that they are both fundamental rights of the constitution.
But I know where this is going so I won't entertain justifying the butchering of the constitution or the bill of rights!
Those rights are in place for a reason.
2007-04-02 05:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by Tall Chicky 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Luckily, in America, we get both rights (so far). Note to Henry VIII: that "quote" is so far from having any credible witnesses you might as well have said Bush was quoted as saying he kills kittens and fries them up for breakfast. Had Bush actually said that about the Constitution, it would have been front page news, not a side note on a liberal blog.
2007-04-02 06:03:26 · answer #4 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right to bear arms. What good is freedom of speech without an ability to keep it?
2007-04-02 05:47:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
My right to bear arms helps ensure my freedom of speech.
2007-04-02 05:47:16 · answer #6 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The right to bear arms helps to ensure the freedom of
speech, so "lock and load"
2007-04-02 05:48:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech. While the "The right to bear arms" made sense in the type of society that existed at the time of the founding fathers, in today's highly urbanized America it is a recipe for disaster.
2007-04-02 05:46:32 · answer #8 · answered by A Person 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
They are equally important as per the Constitution. Of course anyone who has not read the Constitution or thinks of it only as a GD piece of paper would choose one over the other.
2007-04-02 05:44:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They're not mutually exclusive. Each protects the other. If you take one away, the other will follow shortly thereafter.
2007-04-02 05:46:28 · answer #10 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋