Would the First Amendment be possible without the second amendment?

Question

Seriously!

Answer 1

Good one, Princess. Unfortunately it went over the heads of a lot of people, proving that the schools evidently are not doing much to teach the Constitution to our youth. Someone recently said "A government that is big enough to do everything for you is strong enough to do anything to you", which is the reason for the second amendment. The people must have the means to resist the government if it becomes too repressive and attempts to become a totalitarian force. Freedom of speech is just one of the liberties that a country can lose when it's government knows that the people have no means to resist repression. Germany is an excellent example of what happens when a citizenry is not allowed to defend itself. The Nazis disarmed the populous long before the second world war. After WWII many germans were asked why they allowed the Nazis to have such absolute control over them and how the people could have allowed the Holocaust to occur. The answer was, and is to this day, what could we do? They were too strong for us. Now, over 50 years later, the german people are still not allowed to maintain weapons in their homes. Burglary is rampant, because the burglar knows that he will meet no armed resistance from his victims. Every day the newspaper in our little town has a half dozen articles about burglaries and robberies at knifepoint that have occured. Once again, freedom of speech in this country is curtailed. Although only a fool would actually say that the Holocaust never occurred, as has the President of Iran, it is against the law in Germany to speak that thought. A TV moderator who hosts a popular discussion program wrote a book last year saying that part of the reason that there is such a high juvenile delinquency rate here is that mothers are not staying at home to supervise their children, they are pursuing careers. She was placed on probation by her company for her thoughts. Last week she said, on the air, that even though the Third Reich was 99% evil, it did encourage women to stay at home with their families and that the families were stronger because of it. She was fired the next day, the victim of political correctness. I'm not saying that anything would have been different if the woman could have owned firearms, but her case is an example of the loss of that most basic of liberties, the right to speek freely. When the loss of liberty becomes extreme, as in the case of the Nazis, the people must have the means to resist. Those people in America who have championed gun control fall into two groups. The ones who do not understand that self defense from criminals or a repressive government is a basic right of a free people, and those who dream of political power over a completely submissive citizenry. The benefit of an armed citizenry became abundantly clear several years ago when Sheriff Arpaio established a county ordinance that every household was required to own a firearm. Although not everyone complied, the crooks didn't know that, and crimes against persons immediately dropped by over 90%.

Answer 2

It would be little more than words on a page without a means to back them up.

The second amendment has been referred to as our "liberty teeth". What many fail to realize is that the right to keep and bear arms is not only about the right to self defense, it is about the ability of our citizenry to defend against a tyrannical government gone awry.

Fortunately, we are nowhere near that point and our mechanisms of checks and balances and limited terms seem to function pretty well. However, should that ever change the second amendment ensures that such a tyrannical government cannot force its will on the people at gunpoint for the people will have the means to fight back in a real and meaningful way.

Answer 3

No. If we the people are not afforded the right to defend our natural liberties, these liberties exist in name only. Self defense is a fundamental human right.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong."
-- Thomas Paine

Answer 4

the completed objective of the 2nd exchange is for the voters of the country to be as properly armed via fact the government they have elected, in particular to maintain the government in verify. Our founding fathers that drafted our shape and our bill of rights new this became an significant portion of holding the government "for the folk." this way if the government strayed to far, we the folk, ought to put in place a sparkling equipment that greater useful serves our desires. The nationwide look after isn't a millitia as interior the bill of Rights sense. The nationwide look after contraptions are extensions of the militia run via the federal government. Militias are meant to be produced from the voters, run via the voters, and holding the voters.

Answer 5

The Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with citizens defending themselves against the government. That's the kind of thinking that fuels people like Timothy McVeigh. If the government decided to take away our rights, do you really think that an armed citizenry would be able to stand up against the US military? Of course not, it's just silly to even think like that. The First Amendment works simply because the Constitution as a whole is respected (Usually). Nobody needs to be armed in order to speak freely.

Answer 6

Yes, seriously.

What Second Amendment? What I mean is, I know that the amendment is on paper and I know what the amendment says, but that amendment has never been used by the Sup. Ct. as a reason to strike down any laws, while the First has been used umpteen million times to do so. The Second seems to be a limp noodle when compared to the First.

Thumbs up for "October." Right on.
Thumbs up for "mrs. hichefheidi," too.

Answer 7

No. I use the example of the civil war. People were called to fight for the north or south and they brought their weapons with them. The governments didn't have enough money to buy weapons for everyone. In fact many soldiers spent a lot of their money buying repeating rifles that the military could not afford so they had a better chance of living.

Answer 8

Gosh I love good questions!! Obviously the purpose of the Second Amendment, ultimately, is to protect the rest of the Constitution.

Answer 9

The second amendment is very important in giving individuals the ability to defend all of the rights outlined in the Constitution if the government tries to violate them...........

Answer 10

Yes.

The 2nd amendment right to bear arms has no influence on legislation. Eveybody has a gun in Chicago, both legally and illegally, even though it is illegal to have a handgun within the city limits unless you have a special permit. I'm certain that our crooked mayor doesn't ponder legislation with 'who owns a gun' in mind.