Dead kids and our 1st and 2nd amendment rights...

zappasguitar

Well-known member
So in another thread the little coward grind had this to say:

This is the SECOND time this has happened:

Honestly these parents should be sentenced to life imprisonment after violating the previous order after KILLING THEIR FIRST kid, now they have 2 dead kids on their hand for their irrational beliefs. So sad and disgusting.

Of course the little coward doesn't want his hypocrisy pointed out to everyone so he threadbanned me...

But still the question remains:

Is the 1st amendment as important to grind as #2.

grind said recently that dead kids aren't as important as gun rights.

Isn't freedom of religion more important than dead kids?
 
The 2nd is there to protect the 1st. From the government. That aspect is not always noted but of huge import.


This may have been the case back in 1776, but you best make sure you have the military and a few other citizens on your side these days if you are going to take a stand against the govenment. Your gun cache may/will preserve your life for a few days, well, at least, until they drone you.
 
This may have been the case back in 1776, but you best make sure you have the military and a few other citizens on your side these days if you are going to take a stand against the govenment. Your gun cache may/will preserve your life for a few days, well, at least, until they drone you.
Yeah, that's why we left Afghanistan. Our drones are SOOOOO great.
 
That’s a profound question. I would say that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment. Unlike the First Amendment, which is a direct grant (viz. “Congress shall make no law . . . .”) of fundamental rights and freedoms (i.e., religion, speech, press, assembly, petition), the Second Amendment does not grant any rights at all. Whatever rights that are secured by the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, they are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As for protecting our rights against the government, the Second Amendment will not serve, for our rights are protected by law - not by guns. And know this: the surest - and swiftest - way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.
Rights are not granted to begin with. Read the preamble to the BoR.
 
This may have been the case back in 1776, but you best make sure you have the military and a few other citizens on your side these days if you are going to take a stand against the govenment. Your gun cache may/will preserve your life for a few days, well, at least, until they drone you.
Drop one pol and you make a dramatic impression. Reference giffords.
 
Well then thank GOD you all believe gun rights are more important than the lives of children.

Last I checked it was against the law to murder kids. Criminals are not inclined to fret about breaking laws. So is this to be about murdered kuds or first ammendment ? The two are unrelated.
 
Yes, but you know what happened to that person. He isn't walking around free, and not many have taken up his cause.
His political message was muted mainly by his own actions. And as asassians go, he was untalented. How long did a trained asassins go before he was caught ? (Mohammad and Malvo snipers here a few years ago. And he wasnt trying to make a political point but if you wish to, killing one guy is not that hard. Those two screwed up by continuing. Quit after 2 or 3 and you could go undetected forever. And with all that, congresscritters changed their actions quite a lot.
 
No. Rights exist only by law. There are no rights without law; no rights contrary to law; no rights superior to law. That's the way it is; the way it must be; and no other way. Get used to it.

No, the very concept of rights is that they exist based solely on our conditions as human beings and that the basis of law should be to protect our rights.
 
I was always appalled by grind's (aka tfl) rhetoric on that one but I fail to see a contradiction here. He was not arguing that the shooter's act should be legal and he is not arguing for prior restraint here.

In the case of these parents, I do think the state should have some power to intervene before there is a death but it should tread as lightly as possible. The court order did not violate that principle, imo. Certainly the state is justified in punishing the parents. They are not being punished for their religious beliefs but for neglect. The punishment is too light.

On the second versus first.... all of our rights are sacred but if the time comes that we must resort to arms to defend our liberty then it is already lost, for all practical purposes. The first amendment is more instrumental in preserving our liberty in the day-to-day real world. The second is mostly useful in the world of the fantasy freedom fighters.
 
Last edited:
No, the very concept of rights is that they exist based solely on our conditions as human beings and that the basis of law should be to protect our rights.


Oops nevermind below. I thought you were grind for a second...

You don't actually believe that since as The Fake Libertarian (tfl) you argue that rights are conditional to citizenship.
 
Last edited:
That’s a profound question. I would say that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment. Unlike the First Amendment, which is a direct grant (viz. “Congress shall make no law . . . .”) of fundamental rights and freedoms (i.e., religion, speech, press, assembly, petition), the Second Amendment does not grant any rights at all. Whatever rights that are secured by the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, they are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As for protecting our rights against the government, the Second Amendment will not serve, for our rights are protected by law - not by guns. And know this: the surest - and swiftest - way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


"shall not be infringed'...
 
Back
Top