Let's try this again : Right To Bear Arms Vs. Freedom of Speech (1 Viewer)

[Hatuey]

You can only have 1. Not both andnd no you cant use one to get the other.

 

[Jerry]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin

If I give up free speech for the safety of a personal firearm, I disserve neither.

If I give up a personal firearm to secure my speech, I deserve neither.

My answer is not on your poll.

 

[Hatuey]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin

If I give up free speech for the safety of a personal firearm, I disserve neither.

If I give up a personal firearm to secure my speech, I deserve neither.

My answer is not on your poll.

Thats not what it means Jerry. It says "Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety". It doesnt say "Those who would give up safety. The statement he made was on giving up liberty not safety

 

[TurtleDude]

If I can easily kill you, I will get freedom of speech. If I have no arms, you can silence my right to speak rather easily.

Golden Rule-He who has the arms make the rules

Yea , though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death , I shall fear no evil because I am the baddest mother*****er in the valley !

 

[Hatuey]

If I can easily kill you, I will get freedom of speech. If I have no arms, you can silence my right to speak rather easily.

Golden Rule-He who has the arms make the rules

Yea , though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death , I shall fear no evil because I am the baddest mother*****er in the valley !

How does that work? You'd be silencing somebody elses freedom of speech by killing them for their ideas. Not really freedom of speech is it?

 

[Jerry]

Thats not what it means Jerry. It says "Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety". It doesnt say "Those who would give up safety. The statement he made was on giving up liberty not safety

Rather I give up the liberty of a firearm or speech to secure the other, I disserve neither.

Water or air, pick one. You can't have both.

Either way, your dead, just like your constitutional rights would be in your question.

 

[TurtleDude]

How does that work? You'd be silencing somebody elses freedom of speech by killing them for their ideas. Not really freedom of speech is it?

you don't understand. If you tell me I will go to jail for speaking out on an issue and I am armed I will kill you and then I will speak. Arms are power, power protects my utilization of other rights. If I can kill you for violating my rights, my rights have a rather strong force guaranteeing them

 

[Hatuey]

you don't understand. If you tell me I will go to jail for speaking out on an issue and I am armed I will kill you and then I will speak. Arms are power, power protects my utilization of other rights. If I can kill you for violating my rights, my rights have a rather strong force guaranteeing them

Because...killing somebody wouldnt put you in jail?

Rather I give up the liberty of a firearm or speech to secure the other, I disserve neither.

Water or air, pick one. You can't have both.

Either way, your dead, just like your constitutional rights would be in your question.

LOL You cant compare your universal right to an opinion to the goverment created right to posses a firearm.

 

[Mr.Clover]

I'm going to pull a "reporter *****s rummy in the mouth" and be straight to the point.

Can you please explain why we can't have both rights?

 

[Hatuey]

I'm going to pull a "reporter *****s rummy in the mouth" and be straight to the point.

Can you please explain why we can't have both rights?

I didnt say you cant have them. But if you were forced to pick one of them.

 

[TurtleDude]

I didnt say you cant have them. But if you were forced to pick one of them.

YOu again don't understand. Under you scenario I am only armed and if I try to speak, I will be jailed or worse-which by definition means I do not have a right to free speech. Not intending to be "waterboarded" or jailed for merely speaking, I assert my second amendment rights as intended and kill at least a few of my oppressors. If I and/or others kill enough of them, then my free speech rights return.

 

[Synch]

You can use the latter to obtain the former but not vise versa, therefore in order to maximize freedom it is only logical to have the rights to bear arms as a prerequisite because it can be utilized to fight the oppressor, while the oppressor can simply kill those spreading dissent even if you are granted freedom of speech.

I don't see the point of this thread though, these two are anything but mutually exclusive.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can use the latter to obtain the former but not vise versa, therefore in order to maximize freedom it is only logical to have the rights to bear arms as a prerequisite because it can be utilized to fight the oppressor, while the oppressor can simply kill those spreading dissent.

Astute analysis:2wave:

 

[jamesrage]

You can only have 1. Not both andnd no you cant use one to get the other.

Since this is a hypothetical question I will say The right to bear arms.With the right to bear arms I can shoot your *** if you try to steal from me,hurt my family and friends or destroy my country and I can use a gun to hunt for food with.

 

[Hatuey]

You can use the latter to obtain the former but not vise versa, therefore in order to maximize freedom it is only logical to have the rights to bear arms as a prerequisite because it can be utilized to fight the oppressor, while the oppressor can simply kill those spreading dissent even if you are granted freedom of speech.

I don't see the point of this thread though, these two are anything but mutually exclusive.

You can obtain the right to bear arms through freedom of speech. If the majority of the country votes for it it can be done.

 

[jamesrage]

You can obtain the right to bear arms through freedom of speech. If the majority of the country votes for it it can be done.

Thats a laugh,freedom of speech does not guarantee that anyone will listen.Any parent,aunt,uncle,grandparent or some other relative knows that.

 

[ModerateDem]

You can only have 1. Not both andnd no you cant use one to get the other.

Problem is if you have a nice M-16 rifle stapped to your back who would challenge what you say at any point in time? Not I! So I vote for number 2.

 

[TurtleDude]

Problem is if you have a nice M-16 rifle stapped to your back who would challenge what you say at any point in time? Not I! So I vote for number 2.

another astute point. If I am in a large room and without shoes I might not like the noise of a rattlesnake rattling but its really not worth the pain it would take to step on the snake and silence it. His fangs give him a right to make noise

 

[talloulou]

Our right to Bear Arms is the most important right of all. An armed populace isn't easily abused or silenced by the government.

 

[26 X World Champs]

.Arms are power, power protects my utilization of other rights.

What a crock! Look at Iraq. We have all the arms, all the technology and we're losing the war. Ultimately if there's ever a solution in Iraq it will be through words not weapons.

 

[jamesrage]

What a crock! Look at Iraq. We have all the arms, all the technology and we're losing the war. Ultimately if there's ever a solution in Iraq it will be through words not weapons.

All that firepower and technology does no good if you are restricted to where and when you can use it.***** pc laws have basically tied the hands of our troops and forced them to fight a sensitive pc war.

 

[ModerateDem]

What a crock! Look at Iraq. We have all the arms, all the technology and we're losing the war. Ultimately if there's ever a solution in Iraq it will be through words not weapons.

or we can look at the American revolution and see how the fact that we did arm ourselves, freedom prevailed.

 

[26 X World Champs]

or we can look at the American revolution and see how the fact that we did arm ourselves, freedom prevailed.

If both sides have weapons everyone loses a lot. If neither side has arms then who prevails?

 

[jamesrage]

If both sides have weapons everyone loses a lot. If neither side has arms then who prevails?

Then ones who prevail are the ones who are the strongest and most numerous.

 

[ModerateDem]

If both sides have weapons everyone loses a lot. If neither side has arms then who prevails?

You must be pessimistic.
If both sides have arms one side or the other wins. if they have no arms and only freedom of speech the oppressors win because nobody listens.