What is more dangerous? The 1st or the 2nd Amendment

The abuses of either, and the view of them as entitlements as opposed to privileges, are what make them each destructive. Taking each one to its extreme is what makes them dangerous and damaging. This country has lost all reason and moderation in this regard.

It's one thing when a small handful of people push the envelope; they expand the boundary, and when things get out of hand we can reel them back in, but not as far as they were before. That's how we make progress, by pushing the limit and bringing it back to reason. Two big stumbles forward, then a step back to regain our balance. So when a group of Atheist Transgender Furries get together and march in DC to demand certain things and say certain things, we go "Woh woh woh..." and reel it in because that's just crazy, but then we think about it a little bit and in certain areas they might have some constructive things to consider.

Unfortunately, that small group of boundary pushers is massive now in some particular areas, and they don't listen to reason. And no one wants to reel them back in, or they are too scared to, or the people that should be the voice of reason in our country (our politicians) are too concerned about their own welfare and where they fit in to do anything. So that boundary remains pushed beyond reason.

A solution to bad government with more government is counter productive.

Government promised better security and instead we lost parts of our freedom and got a false sense of security. Their solution? More government.

1st ammendment is dangerous since it limits free expression to only speech. 2nd it gives idiots weapons to throw over the government.

This post is so moronic I want to think it's sarcasm, but it's the internet so who knows...

@bmanva: Instead of making a fool of yourself as you usually do. How about you argue the points in the thread for once.

This is exactly what I am talking about; everything is about extremes in this country. It's either become a tyrannical government, or an anarchist's paradise. No one even wants to think, much less talk, about a middle ground.

Nope...say whatever you want no matter how hurtful and threatening it can be, and own as many guns as you want because everyone around you owns guns and you need more guns to protect yourself.

Is it? Pretty much half of gun owners I know say they own weapons because they're scared of the government and "need" them in case they need to overthrow it.

The second amendment is for regulated militias to enforce state power. You might want to look up the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion before saying such things.

Yes, it's moronic. First of all, 1st amendment doesn't "limit" speech (although subsequent SCOTUS cases have established that it's not nonrestrictive) and the term "speech" is inclusive of all form of expression, so the whole first sentence is just plain wrong. As for weapons to "throw over(sic)" the government, no one save for a few extremists promote the idea of overthrowing the government with force and very rarely publicly; if they do they would be immediately arrested because of the simple fact that it's illegal (see Smith Act). What most gun owners likely tell you is that it serves as a last defense against tyranny in whatever form. The idea of a citizen soldier is the basis of the 2nd amendment. It's not really about the actual possibility of a government crackdown but rather a deterrence against it. The thinking again being that armed populace is considerably more difficult to subjugate than an unarmed one. Along with the constitution and its many amendments, 1st and 2nd reinforce the principle that power belongs to the individual not consolidated by the government.

You're the only fool I see here. Seriously it takes literally two seconds on google to see that you are way off base about your 1st amendment claim.

I tend to view words as being more powerful than 'arms' or violence. As to whom it may be more dangerous to is the better discussion to be had.

Huh?

I am for both amendments.

Guns laws only work for people who follow the laws. In my country we have a fairly strict gun control, but if I wanted to. I could easily obtain a gun... but I wont, I dont really have any interest, or need in owning one.

I agree with this post. I have no interest in owning a gun but I appreciate our gun freedoms in America and don't want restrictions that are unnecessary. But I want restrictions that are necessary (and obviously seem to be currently absent).

Depends on what you consider dangerous, I guess. I'd say they're both pretty equally dangerous.

Pretty dumb thread overall, neither are dangerous. I find it scary and insane that people are afraid of free speech or legal gun ownership?!?

They both have loop holes. I can't say 90% of the things I want to say. Toddlers can't own guns what a bummer.

Slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

Restricting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution because a crazy man got past the incredibly lax and flawed background check system is a moronic proposal. The government in the US needs to be refining the systems already in place to help avoid things like this from happening.

Why was his status on the no-fly list not brought up during the background check for his firearms? It should have been (this would just make sense), but just goes to show how meaningless all these laws and securities really are if they can't work interdepartmentally. If someone is committed to a mental hospital, is that fact also brought up during a background check? I highly doubt it.

EDIT: And restricting free speech is tantamount to making the US like any Muslim country in the world. They could easily legislate things like blasphemy laws despite the freedom of religion right.

What's more dangerous is the absence of those ammendments.

^^^^ What a dumbass comment.

^^^^ Darn right about that.

Both are neither good or bad. I do wish that the founders would have been more specific with both however but they apparently had more faith in the good sense of those that would come after them then was in hindsight warranted.

Me too, even though I don't own a gun, I like the fact that if I want to buy one, I can. Now as far as the OT is concerned, the ammendments aren't the problem, it's people's interpretation that can make them dangerous.

Americans have an unhealthy obsession with guns, sports and cars.

Not sure why some people on the left have such a hard time grasping this simple fact. What's more important is the fact that people has to believe the law to be just and reasonable to observe it. Otherwise you have situation like during the prohibition when normally law abiding citizens frequently get involved in criminal enterprises and criminals are glorified as folk heroes. Without changing the culture, any attempt to enforce gun bans would result in the same.

Most developed countries have an obsession with sports and cars. But the obsession with guns is mostly unique to America... America has more guns per person than any other country in the world.

Neither amendment are bad, the second supports the first. I agree with bmanva.

Without question, the First Amendment has greater potential to harm the United States of America. Someone with a semi-automatic weapon can kill dozens of people while someone who calls for revolution can change the entire nation.

Stereotyping is awesome.

As for the second amendment, I will never understand the need to own a fully automatic, or even a semi automatic assault gun. Those are weapons to be used on the battlefield.

Free speech causes hate and bigotry? Holy **** you dudes are completely indoctrinated. Good luck with that shit.

One could argue both amendments are necessary for the preservation of a free nation. I see no danger in either of them the way they are written.

However I do agree with fenriz275 . Our founders probably didn't expect their descendants to be outright idiots. Even the Hatfields and Mccoys could agree on the second amendment!

@raugutcon: you and bmanva have failed to make a counter argument. My point still stands.

@thegerg: Yes, all of them. There is no need to own a fully or semi automatic assault rifle.

@thegerg: Whether my statement was slightly incorrect, or not, weapons like those have no place in the hands of ordinary people. You don't need those kinds of weapons.

@thegerg: Fully automatic weapons, kill people. Video games do not.

@thegerg: As I understand the first amendment; It's freedom of speech so long as one doesn't infringe on another's freedom. So I may consider my words free speech but as soon as someone takes it as hate speech it becomes unlawful. I'm not holding back 90% of hate or nothing though.

@thegerg: Sure it does.

Video games aren't needed but they're fun and act as a hobby, or something more. Fully automatic guns, can kill people very easily. Walk into a crowd with a fully automatic gun, and take out 30 people in 30 seconds. Let me just make myself clear. I'm not against guns. Handguns, shotguns, and even snipers are fine. But when it comes to something like an AK-47, or an AR-15, no. Those are weapons of death.

I don't even know why the second amendment still exists. Back in the 1770's my little town in Massachusetts was somewhat unsettled and you had to defend yourself from bears and other dangerous things, but in 2016 I just don't see why normal, every-day people need guns. Isn't it funny how people say they need ASSAULT WEAPONS for "defense"? Why? how? Why do you need to cycle 600 rounds per minute to defend your house? You dont. We kill more of our own people every year than terrorists do. Im more afraid of domestic gun violence than terrorism.

Repeal the 2nd amendment- it has no purpose if you ask me.

@Shmiity: The level of stupidity you've just shown is both impressive and downright scary.

I've seen a lot of retarded political threads at this site but holy shit, this one is ... no words adequately describe it. This country probably won't survive the trigger warning and safe space generation growing up and taking over.

@thegerg: I don't think I could tell a cop you suck **** without problems in the US.