It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Revolution II: Which is more important - Free Speech or Bear Arms?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Any insults in this thread will instantly be forwarded to the appropriate mod for action

Please refrain from using immature language and keep the discussion on topic


Debate Topic: In a new revolution in America, to restore the republic to the original glory our founding fathers envisioned, which is more valuable in our current crisis: The Bill of Rights Amendment I or Amendment II

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

My thesis is that: A population under the government of a people that does not serve the interests of the people will not listen to the people. It is therefore more valuable to the people to have the right to bear arms.

Contention 1 - The U.S. government is not serving the interest of the people. While there are problems nationally, the goverment is focused on issues and problems in the international arena that do not directly affect Americans.

A - Israel: Unless Israel becomes the next state it is absurd we give them foreign aid that exceeds the government's federal support to many states in the realm of education and social services (not welfare but libraries and other services for the society)

B - Iraq: Besides the private contractors based out of American firms, what other American citizens are benefiting from the Iraq war besides politicians. The Iraq war has only given the American people two things. The first is the death of their daughters and sons, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, teachers and students, businessmen and women. The second is a financial bill that is growing day by day and will be paid back by the children of today and tomorrow.

C - Globalization: Other than benefiting the corporate entities known as Multinational Corporations, the benefits of these businesses in America is limited to the upper echelons of society. The American people are not benefitting from them. Their policies affect the average working citizen and often affect them in the terms of job loss, cutbacks, lowered wages and corruption within labour organizations.

Contention 2 The U.S. is a republic with a democratic form of representation. However in today's day and age with the development of the world as a community Americans have been shoved into the fold and lesser and lesser is our goverment listening to the issues and concerns of the people. When the government does listen they often fail to take action.

A - States Rights: While often states rights are a good thing they can work against us. While a victory for one party in Colorado may improve the lives of those in Colorado, the ability to effect Federal change is limited, financially burdensome and an overly time consuming process. With a goverment that listens to the people they would aptly and rightly promote the growth of the republic with a purpose and sense of unity.

B - Assembly: The right to assemble has been hampered by such laws against homeless people as no sitting on the sidewalks. Now the policemen can tell the protesters to keep moving. Blocking traffic is a reasonable law, however the streets are the peoples, they paid for them. A liscense must be attained before any assembly of the people in any form of protest action. The police should support our rights and help us when we want to protest by routing traffic to effectively show the people of a city the people have the right to protest, instead they sit and watch and have people honk and hate the protesters for creating traffic congestion.

C - Speech: This comes from my personal experience which can be taken as you please. Free speech in America is getting more and more limited. With surveillance and actions against those who speak freely. With secret service and FBI officials asking colleges and universites for enrollment rosters and background information on specific individuals. Espeically the individuals involved with action groups known throughout the country by some but not by all. Such groups are like United for Peace and Justice, Global Action, Move-on and such..

Contention 3: We need guns to revolt


[edit on 6-3-2005 by 00PS]




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The right to bear arms is necessary to insure freedoms such as free speech since it gives power to the people to resist an overbearing government. This was envisioned by the founding fathers and is a main reason the 2nd Amendment exists.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Oops. That boils down to a complicated question with a simple answer in my opinion. They are both equally important and as such are both a valuable part of our constitution. However, I do believe that ownerhip of firearms should be regulated so it doesnt get out of hand. Gun collectors should be kept in mind as well. As in, allowances for thier collection. If you are a collector, obviously you are going to have a few firearms. They should be able to keep them with no consequence. There are some very valuable gun collections out there that contain some pricless guns from all points in the time line of firearms, and as such, should be allowed to remain the treasures the are to the collectors. I am all for owning firearms, I just dont want my neighbor cutting down the telephone poles on my street with his 50 cal 85 round a minute gatlin gun



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
how bout free speech and the right to bear arms

I will not give up either, no compromise, it's not my style



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
how bout free speech and the right to bear arms

I will not give up either, no compromise, it's not my style


Rightly said. I doubt anyone would give up any of our rights. What do you think about the question of this topic though. That is, in a new American revolution, which would be more valuable. The guns or the tounge?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
omega
he's not asking which you'd give up, he's asking which is more important to resolve our current dillema.

oops
I tend to think the second ammendment is more important. The first has always been important, and that will never change, but look at our current situation and ask yourself; what good has talking done?

There are millions of Americans who are ready and able to do what is necessary. It's just a matter of time, and leadership.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
look at our current situation and ask yourself; what good has talking done?


I agree. While I also think any revolution will need Free Speech to educate the masses of the changes taking place we cannot accomplish it without the right to bear arms. Can you imagine the communist revolution of MaoZiDong succeeding without guns? Even though their equipment wasn't the greatest, it was needed to succeed, along with many things like secrecy, and speech although it was restricted and hence often secret however there were many protests and outcrying done by students who often suffered repression because of their actions.

I have stated my case and would like to get many peoples views. As of now all people have stated Guns vs. Speech except for Omega who has yet to respond. I would like to see if we can have a debate between the two ideals. I hope we can. The ideals boil down to Violent vs. Non-Violent revolution, but we'll get to that later.

Thanks for participating everyone.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Any insults in this thread will instantly be forwarded to the appropriate mod for action

[edit per mod request] tatletail.

Please refrain from using immature language and keep the discussion on topic
[edit per mod request] I #ed that up already.


which is more valuable in our current crisis: The Bill of Rights Amendment I or Amendment II

How can one possibly distinguish between which inalienable and fundamental rights are more important?




It is therefore more valuable to the people to have the right to bear arms.

Why? Arms are maintained to be used militarily, to either fight invaders, such as the british or the natives, not to coerce government. Overthrow it, yes, but not coerce it.


While there are problems nationally, the goverment is focused on issues and problems in the international arena that do not directly affect Americans.

International relations are obviously vitally and directly important to the american public as everything from wwii to 911 has shown.


it is absurd we give them foreign aid that exceeds the government's federal support to many states

The federal government doesn't need to prop states against aggressive palestinian attacks. Also, what other countries are receiving similar amounts of aid? Eitherway, the US theoretically obtains great value on the geostrategic scale and geopolitical realm. It certainly hasn't cashed in on that investment, and it might be all for naught what with democritization in the mid east and invasion axes in other portions, but a very friendly and malleable tool, with great expansion potential and, importantly, the ability to have massive numbers of troops moved in thru the med. might still be usable in the future.


Besides the private contractors based out of American firms, what other American citizens are benefiting from the Iraq war besides politicians.

A democratized iraq is in the interests of the american public, far more so than an increase in education spending or a new highway program.


The Iraq war has only given the American people two things. The first is the death of their daughters and sons, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, teachers and students, businessmen and women. The second is a financial bill that is growing day by day and will be paid back by the children of today and tomorrow.

I am sure others said the same things about wwi and wwii. The US is much safer and better off with the federal republic of germany than a Kaiser ruled monarchy or a Hitlerist Dictatorship.


The American people are not benefitting from [globalization].

A similar argument could've been applied to capitalism in general, and yet the american people are part of the largest and most powerful economy on the planet and possibly ever seen by history. Globalization has its costs, just like capitalism, but no other system seems to produce as much good for as many people. Why try to artificially control the market thru state planning, which has been shown to not work, when market forces can act unrestricted and do better?


in today's day and age with the development of the world as a community Americans have been shoved into the fold and lesser and lesser is our goverment listening

The government obviously is listening to the majority, the majority supports it. All you are saying here really is that its not doing what you think it should do.


With a goverment that listens to the people they would aptly and rightly promote the growth of the republic with a purpose and sense of unity.

So you argue for the abolition of the states and a massive increase in centralization and increase of federal power?


The right to assemble has been hampered by such laws against homeless people as no sitting on the sidewalks. Now the policemen can tell the protesters to keep moving.

There have allways been restrictions on the right to assembly, the founders were well aware of how dangerous mobs are.




The police should support our rights and help us when we want to protest by routing traffic to effectively show the people of a city the people have the right to protest,

So a thousand should have their rights held up over the millions that are not protesting?



instead they sit and watch and have people honk and hate the protesters for creating traffic congestion.

Then the protestors shouldn't block traffic. Its the cops' fault that the protestors are a nuissance? The right to assemble isn't a right to restrict everyone else's movement.


This comes from my personal experience which can be taken as you please.

Can you elaborate on what that personal experience is?

Free speech in America is getting more and more limited.

You can say whatever you want whereever you want, so long as you don't incite a riot or lynchmob, and even then its often allowed.


With surveillance and actions against those who speak freely. With secret service and FBI officials asking colleges and universites for enrollment rosters and background information on specific individuals.

This is not illegal nor does it restrict free speech.



We need guns to revolt

Revol against what? The democratically elected government that you are for some odd reason not particularly fond of?

Guns are needed to put down the narrow undemocratic interests that would wreck the ship of state.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PSThat is, in a new American revolution, which would be more valuable. The guns or the tounge?

Neither will be effective. Revolutionaries will be corraled, shot, gased and exterminated. No anti-federalist militia, not even in the wildest dreams of the montanans and such, can possibly defeat in the field the US Army. I doubt most militia groups could even defeat, say, husseins republican guard, and the army made disturbingly short work of them, and by conventional means.

What good are shot-gun militias against blister and nerve agents?


wyrdeone
he's asking which is more important to resolve our current dillema.

The 'current dilema' is that there is a minority of the people that are unhappy with the government. The best way for this to be addressed is thru the already established avenues. Exercise the right to free speech and vote. It hardly requires a military revolution to shift policy to the left, or right.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Nygdan thanks for responding to so many points. I see you used the F word and caled me a F***** tatletail... It's censored in the posting put not when you review it for a reply...tsk tsk. I'm sorry you don't have the maturity to particpate in this conversation.

The topic has been stated and I don't wish to side track the discussion by responding to everything you have said since you didn't even offer your perpective of what is more valuable in a revolution- free speech or bear arms. If you answer that, then I'll respond (without using the F word)



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Neither will be effective. Revolutionaries will be corraled, shot, gased and exterminated. No anti-federalist militia, not even in the wildest dreams of the montanans and such, can possibly defeat in the field the US Army. I doubt most militia groups could even defeat, say, husseins republican guard, and the army made disturbingly short work of them, and by conventional means.

What good are shot-gun militias against blister and nerve agents?

The 'current dilema' is that there is a minority of the people that are unhappy with the government. The best way for this to be addressed is thru the already established avenues. Exercise the right to free speech and vote. It hardly requires a military revolution to shift policy to the left, or right.


Thanks for responding, now I'll reply. So you say that U.S. government will shoot, gas and exterminate U.S. revolutionary forces like Hitler did to Gypsies, Jews, Blacks and Homosexuals? Do you think they should include those groups too? And If the US is ready to take this kind of action against revolutionaries, how could you state that it's only a minority that are unhappy with the government?

I see you are for the Free Speech side of the arguement. But you are hard to understand because you say neither are effective and two we don't need a revolution. So to this I ask you, participation in this discussion is based around the debate topic. Which is more valuable in a revolution. If you don't want to hypothesize (speeling
) a revolution and which would be more valuable then why are you participating?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The right to bear arms is necessary to insure freedoms such as free speech since it gives power to the people to resist an overbearing government. This was envisioned by the founding fathers and is a main reason the 2nd Amendment exists.


The founding fathers devised this back when the people and government both had muskets. Things were a bit more equal back then. These days, "arms" that could be used to keep a government in check are a completely different thing.

These days, there's little reason to have a firearm unless you regularly rely on game to fill your fridge. So the need for a weapon is not essential. However, the need to freely express your opinion without government controls is vitally essential.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The dude has spoken...I love that movie.

Ok 'dude' free speech is essential no doubt. How could you have a revolution without one. It seperates guerilla warfare and terrorism from revolution.

Revolution is the re evolution of the government, not mere attacks on objectives but total regime change by the citizens of a soverign nation for the soverign nation.

However, when my countrymen are stiffled and oppressed and repressed for their revolution, how can I sit back and not defend our right to revolt to the death, either the enemy or my own?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I think the 2nd amendment helps guarantee the 1st.

But then you need the 1st amendment to be able to discuss the 2nd.

Best we just keep them all.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think the 2nd amendment helps guarantee the 1st.

But then you need the 1st amendment to be able to discuss the 2nd.

Best we just keep them all.


Centurion, if I'm not mistaken you often come into my threads and tell people to ignore me like you have. But how could you have seen my thread if you were ignoring me? Very odd.

Centurion, if there is a revolution in the USA against the powers that be. Maybe now or some unspecified time in the future, what do you think would be more valuable for success of the revolution - the right to bear arms or the right to free speech?

Thanks for coming


[edit on 6-3-2005 by 00PS]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
centurion worded it best, you need the 2nd to have the 1st. The threat of an armed militia keeps the government in check, but if it was a choice between the two, Ill take the right to bear arms.



Maximu§



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Skeptic Overlord beat me to it. I personally believe the intention of the second amendment was to allow militias to be legally as equipped as the government military for the dual purpose of assisting the government in domestic affairs AND keeping them in check. they have slowly manipulated the meaning of this amendment to their benefit to the point Nydgan makes that a physical revolution is futile. anyone that even begins to legally attain a modest collection of arms remotely effective in a revolution is dealt with(i.e. David Koresh). both of these amendments are being overshadowed by the patriot act in the name of terrorism. the only chance I see of an effective revolution is if it had happened 50 years ago. the precedents have been set, the examples made. if you speak it youre a radical & if you act on it youre a terrorist! I guess ultimately it would depend on how far the administration in power is willing to go. the demeanor of said administration would also be the deciding factor of which method would be most effective, in my opinion.

edit: credited seekerof with SO's points....sorry!

[edit on 6-3-2005 by metalmessiah]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalmessiah
the demeanor of said administration would also be the deciding factor of which method would be most effective, in my opinion.


This is an excellent point!

How to work it into the structure of the discussion now...I think it's a determiner. We can use this to measure both arguements. Really a great point.

The more and more the administration heads in the direction of the patriot Acts and consolidation of power I find it ever more clear to myself that revolution through warfare seems more logical and more likely to succeed than one of propaganda and manipulatin of the public by knowledge and speech.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I find it ironic that you call me immature because I used a 'naughty word', and yet you take a reasonable position, and throw out accusations of being a nazi, bigot and racist. Thats immature, not dropping the f-bomb.

Also, you have alleged that i 'don't want to participate in the conversation'. Yet I have done everything necessary to participate. I merely disagree with you. I disagree that a violent revolution to overthrow the government is needed.


Free speech and assembly and voting are the best ways to get the government to change. Free speech is nearly universally in-effective at overthrowing governments, only gandhi had been able to accomplish that.

As for the revolution being a minority movement, well, what else could it be? If a majority of the people wanted it, so much that tehy were ready to go military on it, then they'd've been able to change it simply by voting.

So if there is a militant revolution, its sure to be done by a minority of the people.


However, when my countrymen are stiffled and oppressed and repressed for their revolution, how can I sit back and not defend our right to revolt to the death, either the enemy or my own?

Well, what are you waiting for?


if there is a revolution in the USA against the powers that be[...]what do you think would be more valuable for success of the revolution - the right to bear arms or the right to free speech?

It would depend on the goals of the revolution, but in general, I would say that any military attempt is doomed to absolute failure, so 'speech' is going to be more important, but 'speech' isn't going to result in an overthrow of government. So if its a 'revolution', it almost certainly has to be a military action, which means its doomed ot failure. So no revolution can work. Change can be effected, and very simply. By voting. If people don't agree with the revolutionaries, then what 'right' to they have to claim to be more democratic than the government?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

as posted by metalmessiah
seekerof beat me to it.


If only I could elaborate as well as who you reference.

That was not me, that was the master elaborator himself, Skeptic Overlord.





seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join