Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I will attempt to compare the exercising of the 1st and 2nd amendments. How the 1st is being defended and what it would look like if the 2nd where viewed in the same light and I will attempt to give apples to apples comparisons as best that I can.
I will start small and work my way up. Please feel free to fill in or correct details/comparisons as needed I handle CONSTRUCTIVE criticism rather well.
So to start us on this path, learning to speak (communicate). We learn some basic communication skills right as we pop out of our mother's womb. We know that if/when we cry we get attention. Not the best start. As we become older we learn to speak better. 1st amendment. If we have siblings or friends at this age we might experience our first conflicts and may have to defend ourselves against the aggressions of other children. 2nd amendment.
In the 1A world, you've seen from the rallies on many issues, it's legal for a child to participate in protests. If the 2A world had the same limits then all the children should be carrying something like a pellet gun and/or a 22lr. However it's, generally, considered a bad thing to let children 'run around' with even pellet guns.
When you become 13, in this country, you can legally post 'information' on a world wide media center for everyone to see for the general good or general bad. Most parents don't teach their children any respect and so a 13 y/o can cause world wide damage. In the 2A world this would be like having a child go from a 22lr to a ICBM. Both can affect the lives of a great number of people.
1A world, most people, even the 13 y/o, do not go around causing harm but there is no prevention from them doing it. 2A world, while it would be legal to build, buy, own an ICBM, most people would rather go and do some harmless 'plinking'.
1A world, some forms of communications are limited, licensed, and restricted but, you can still use them. Some examples would be HAM radio, FM/AM/TV broadcasting. 2A world, you can own a main battle tank, armored personal carriers, field artillery, etc but, you would need an administrative (registration/tax collection) license and/or need to bring them to militia duty regularly to own them.
I hope this was not too long.
Did I give bad comparisons?
Do you have better ones?
They are both founded on natural fundamental rights. The right to speak freely in a way that does not harm others is needed for group survival.
The right to defend yourself, and by extension right to own/use the means by which to do so is a natural right. One person might do better with bare hands and on the other end the other person might need a rocket/grenade launcher. The mode of attack generally dictate the tools needed for defense. If you're a 200lb person and in great shape being attacked by a 150lbs person who is in poor shape might dictate only the need for bare hands. The same defender but the tool being used to attack may be an automobile, the tool of choice for defense may well be an RPG.
/rant
I will start small and work my way up. Please feel free to fill in or correct details/comparisons as needed I handle CONSTRUCTIVE criticism rather well.
So to start us on this path, learning to speak (communicate). We learn some basic communication skills right as we pop out of our mother's womb. We know that if/when we cry we get attention. Not the best start. As we become older we learn to speak better. 1st amendment. If we have siblings or friends at this age we might experience our first conflicts and may have to defend ourselves against the aggressions of other children. 2nd amendment.
In the 1A world, you've seen from the rallies on many issues, it's legal for a child to participate in protests. If the 2A world had the same limits then all the children should be carrying something like a pellet gun and/or a 22lr. However it's, generally, considered a bad thing to let children 'run around' with even pellet guns.
When you become 13, in this country, you can legally post 'information' on a world wide media center for everyone to see for the general good or general bad. Most parents don't teach their children any respect and so a 13 y/o can cause world wide damage. In the 2A world this would be like having a child go from a 22lr to a ICBM. Both can affect the lives of a great number of people.
1A world, most people, even the 13 y/o, do not go around causing harm but there is no prevention from them doing it. 2A world, while it would be legal to build, buy, own an ICBM, most people would rather go and do some harmless 'plinking'.
1A world, some forms of communications are limited, licensed, and restricted but, you can still use them. Some examples would be HAM radio, FM/AM/TV broadcasting. 2A world, you can own a main battle tank, armored personal carriers, field artillery, etc but, you would need an administrative (registration/tax collection) license and/or need to bring them to militia duty regularly to own them.
I hope this was not too long.
Did I give bad comparisons?
Do you have better ones?
They are both founded on natural fundamental rights. The right to speak freely in a way that does not harm others is needed for group survival.
The right to defend yourself, and by extension right to own/use the means by which to do so is a natural right. One person might do better with bare hands and on the other end the other person might need a rocket/grenade launcher. The mode of attack generally dictate the tools needed for defense. If you're a 200lb person and in great shape being attacked by a 150lbs person who is in poor shape might dictate only the need for bare hands. The same defender but the tool being used to attack may be an automobile, the tool of choice for defense may well be an RPG.
/rant
Last edited:
