Free Speech vs. Firearms

[Dave from Michigan]

both equally important, although the second amendment is helpful in defending the first.

[Bono]

3 F-16's will trump 100 rednecks with semi-automatics any day.

the real question is:
Would the soldiers kill their countrymen?
There's precedent for army rebellions under that circumstances.

[Joe Republic]

The theory behind the right to bear arms is that you can use them to overthrow an oppressive government.... ex. one that bans the freedom of speech

You mean like ours? See McCain-Feingold.

Well good luck overthrowing the government Philip.

Where the g hell did I say I intended to overthrow the government?

You're just proving my point, by the way, on why machine guns should be legalized.

Oh lighten up and take a joke.

[ragnar]

3 F-16's will trump 100 rednecks with semi-automatics any day.

the real question is:
Would the soldiers kill their countrymen?

1860-65

[Bono]

3 F-16's will trump 100 rednecks with semi-automatics any day.

the real question is:
Would the soldiers kill their countrymen?

1860-65

As I said, there is also precedent for teh oposite. That depends on a number of variables. Here in Portugal there was no bloodbath in 1974 because the soldiers didn't want to kill theri countrymen.

[ragnar]

3 F-16's will trump 100 rednecks with semi-automatics any day.

the real question is:
Would the soldiers kill their countrymen?

1860-65

As I said, there is also precedent for teh oposite. That depends on a number of variables. Here in Portugal there was no bloodbath in 1974 because the soldiers didn't want to kill theri countrymen.

Yes but it doesn´t happen that way in most countries.

[Jake]

I doubt US military units would kill Americans today unless they were terrorists or were killing innocents. If the situation of 1861 were around today, the Union forces would refuse orders and not invade the south.

[ragnar]

I doubt US military units would kill Americans today unless they were terrorists or were killing innocents. If the situation of 1861 were around today, the Union forces would refuse orders and not invade the south.

And you don´t think the people who begin an armed revolution against USA goverment would be consider "terrorists", or that the goverment could beat up a frenzy with lies and propaganda.

[angus]

Although I believe that both should be protected, I personally find the first one to be more important for sustaining democracy. They may be equal constitutitonally, but I'm more concerned with the infringement of free speech than I am with firearms. I thus voted Option 1.

the choice is bogus.  it's like choosing between Kim Chee and heartburn.  One is the logical consequence of obtaining the other.  You can credit your formal (and perceived) rights of free speech to some 18th century yankee hillbilly with a firearm.  Well, a whole bunch of them, anyway.  "peasants with pitchforks" I believe is the Pat Buchanan-approved term.

[Citizen James]

Well, to sound almost trite, but true - the pen is mighter than the sword (or the smith corona is mighter than the smith and wesson...)

Both have reasonable restrictions on them (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, nor can you open fire in a crowded theater...), but I'd say that a well armed populus is the last line of defense, and freedom of speech is the first.

Which is likely to have a bigger and more postive effect on public policy? 1) you write your Rep, Senator, governor, president, newspaper editorial, blog site, etc.; or 2) you own a lot of guns?

You may be one voice among many, but I think the first amendment is the best line of defense from devolving into a police state in the first place; and as a preventitive measure is the more important one.

[David S]

3 F-16's will trump 100 rednecks with semi-automatics any day.

F-16's can blow a country to pieces, and semi-autos are no defense against that. If the government wants to destroy the country they could do it like that. But if they want to occupy the country they have to put troops on the ground. At that point the semi-autos become more effective.

[opebo]

Although I believe that both should be protected, I personally find the first one to be more important for sustaining democracy. They may be equal constitutitonally, but I'm more concerned with the infringement of free speech than I am with firearms. I thus voted Option 1.

the choice is bogus.  it's like choosing between Kim Chee and heartburn.  One is the logical consequence of obtaining the other.  You can credit your formal (and perceived) rights of free speech to some 18th century yankee hillbilly with a firearm.  Well, a whole bunch of them, anyway.  "peasants with pitchforks" I believe is the Pat Buchanan-approved term.

Coincidence.

[angus]

possibly.  We'll never really know.  I doubt it though.  I think the protestant reformation and the attendant wars really provided the springboard Locke needed, which provided the springboard Jefferson needed, which provided what the French needed.  And son on.  It's a domino effect, really.  But no, I can't prove it.  Draw whatever conclusion you like.

[Inverted Things]

A good firearm will GIVE you freedom of speech.

[angus]

A good firearm will GIVE you freedom of speech.

No argument here.  Or from anyone who has ever found himself at the projectile end of a good firearm.  Or even a mediocre one.

Paper/scissor/rock/...GrenadeLauncher.