• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it time to start talking about repealing the First Amendment?

Is it time to start talking about repealing the 1st Amendment?

  • Total voters
    33
ThePlayDrive said:
In the case of an armed revolution, the 2nd amendment wouldn't even be relevant anymore because citizens would be participating in openly illegal activities. Arguing that the 2nd amendment is useful for defending oneself against the government doesn't make any sense because the 2nd amendment does not give citizens the right to kill government officials.
Click to expand...

The second amendment isn't about legalities. There is the side benefit of being able to defend yourself against other citizens intent on doing you harm, but that is not its primary purpose. Its about retaining the capability to BE UNLAWFUL in the extreme, and making it very difficult for the government to remove that capability without severe consequence. Its the implied threat in the Constitution to the government in power about what could and would happen should they stray too far.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. I didn't limit my argument on free speech regulations to everyday people. All I said was that free speech is regulated so why does it matter that they aren't applicable to everyday people if I never said that they were?

2. No, that it a literal regulation on free speech/the 1st amendment. Do you know what the 1st Amendment is?

3. Not necessarily and who cares if I do? It's still a regulation and the entire point of my post was to say that free speech is regulated.

4. Again, that is a literal regulation on free speech/the 1st. Do you know what the 1st Amendment is?

5. I'm fine with them, but again, who cares?
Click to expand...

So you believe in extra regulation of the first amendment? That's good to see. How do you think the founders would feel? Do you think allowing consistent and constant extra regulation defeats the purpose of said rights?

It matters because if you honestly believe that our rights are meant to be "taken with a grain of salt" and limited to what the government is willing to let us have...then I don't think you understood what the founders meant when they put them down.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The second amendment isn't about legalities. There is the side benefit of being able to defend yourself against other citizens intent on doing you harm, but that is not its primary purpose. Its about retaining the capability to BE UNLAWFUL in the extreme, and making it very difficult for the government to remove that capability without severe consequence. Its the implied threat in the Constitution to the government in power about what could and would happen should they stray too far.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is there even a measure that supports what you've just said. Did the 2nd amendment apply to the confederate states and all of it's citizenry? The US considered them still a part of the entire county who were then engaged in open armed rebellion. Did the confederate citizenry believe that the 2nd amendment still applied to them both before and after they fired on Fort Sumter?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
If I eat pizza everyday, it doesn't make pizza a necessity. Just because you carry a weapon everyday, doesn't make that weapon a necessity. That's one of the most absurd arguments about anything that I ever read in my life.
Click to expand...

You realize you just made the argument against yourself right? Just because people talk freely every day doesn't mean they NEED the right. If it is so absurd...why did you use the same logic? I use the 2nd every day because I'm a legal owner and I wouldn't be without it.


The 1st Amendment says that CONGRESS (AKA THE GOVERNMENT) will not abridge free speech. If we're talking about the 1st Amendment, then yes, we're talking about the government.
Click to expand...

You stated that the idea of resisting the government and so on...if we are talking about reality...the government is not the only one who can stop you from using free speech.


I can't talk to you.
Click to expand...

why? Because you don't understand how active resistance works?
 
Damn, if we are going to be talking the repealing of any amendments, it should be the 22nd!!

We only have a little bit more than a year, so we better get cracking!
 
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...

Haven't read the whole thread, maybe the thoughts I have have been well discussed. But I think the courts need to define the 1st Amendment differently. I don't think the National Enquirer et al ought to be immune from lawsuit for publishing garbage about famous people that isn't true. These publishers earn their fortunes on the backs of the reputation of famous people. If they publish it and can't show its true as they purport it to be? They should have to answer for it in civil court.

I don't think the 1st Amendment was meant to shield liars.
 
This is yet another time-wasting thread which will accomplish nothing.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...

This entire post is offensive on a myriad of levels.

The entire thread needs to be deleted and the OP banned immediately for being offensive and going against the normal grain of the website.

Bye, bye!
 
jet57 said:
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is there even a measure that supports what you've just said. Did the 2nd amendment apply to the confederate states and all of it's citizenry? The US considered them still a part of the entire county who were then engaged in open armed rebellion. Did the confederate citizenry believe that the 2nd amendment still applied to them both before and after they fired on Fort Sumter?
Click to expand...

Armed rebellion is by definition unlawful. The second amendment is most definitely not just self protection of oneself from common criminals. The second amendment is not a protection, its a trip wire.
 
SmartCat said:
I have have already done the paper work to get a permit to carry a concealed hand gun. Nevertheless, I do not like guns. I am in favor of gun control laws that will reduce the crime rate. I am opposed to laws that will inhibit the right of lawful people to protect themselves from criminals. I am aware that the difference between these laws is often difficult to discern.

I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. When considering a gun control law we should ask, "Will this reduce the crime rate?" and not, "Does this violate the Second Amendment?"
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with self-defense of all of your inherent rights from interference by any and all enemies regardless of who or what they are.

Eliminating the Constitutional protection opens it up for any interpretation your peers or you government wishes to impose on you, to the eventual detriment of such liberty.
 
SmartCat said:
I have have already done the paper work to get a permit to carry a concealed hand gun. Nevertheless, I do not like guns. I am in favor of gun control laws that will reduce the crime rate. I am opposed to laws that will inhibit the right of lawful people to protect themselves from criminals. I am aware that the difference between these laws is often difficult to discern.

I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. When considering a gun control law we should ask, "Will this reduce the crime rate?" and not, "Does this violate the Second Amendment?"
Click to expand...

1) enhanced sentences for those who use guns to perpetrate crimes of violence

2) enhanced sentences for those who know or should know that they are transferring weapons to criminals

3) liberalized CCW carry provisions

4) ending Gun free zones, or requiring GFZs to have efficient and sufficient armed guards


I am in favor of indicting-for treason-politicians who try to infringe on the second amendment

as to the topic at hand, the first amendment and the second amendment both are of key importance truth should be an absolute defense except in cases of having security clearances and leaking information you learned only due to your clearance
 
ThePlayDrive said:
There's also the fact that speech is more of an everyday necessity than guns are. Every single person in the country needs and uses free speech everyday. The same can't be said for guns. In terms of practicality, the 1st amendment is more essential than the 2nd.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Since when do the importance or validity of rights have anything to with how often they are used?

When you need a firearm...you *need* it. If you never use it, it does not ever change the importance of the personal liberty to have that right.

I never read anywhere where our rights were based on 'practicality.'
 
Lursa said:
That's ridiculous. Since when do the importance or validity of rights have anything to with how often they are used?

When you need a firearm...you *need* it. If you never use it, it does not ever change the importance of the personal liberty to have that right.

I never read anywhere where our rights were based on 'practicality.'
Click to expand...
Do you really think that I was making a general argument about the importance/validity of rights and not an argument specific to what X Factor and Northern Light were saying? Like, are you for realz, right now?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Do you really think that I was making a general argument about the importance/validity of rights and not an argument specific to what X Factor and Northern Light were saying? Like, are you for realz, right now?
Click to expand...

yes. I read what led up to it.

And I believe my comments still apply.

Why do you think they dont?
 
I don't support regulating or restricting firearms at all, except to protect the consumer and the business owners protections against scams.

What i would support is this:

If found guilty of a crime committed with the use of firearms, there should be a minimum of twenty years in jail without ANY possibility of parole.

An accidental death should have a much lesser degree of penalty.
 
There are already exceptions carved out in the law, such as "inciting a riot." Truly unlimited free speech i doubt has ever existed anywhere. Repeal the 1st amendment and the government can become totalitarian overnight.

I don't know about attention being the motivator of serial killers, but given how rare they are, even if that's true it's a small price to pay compared to censored speech, which is at the core of any free society, and how we express ourselves. It's like i despise the zealots who come to campus now and then, but for every one of them, there's 1000 exchanges of ideas and activities that would be negatively impacted if the 1st amendment were done away with.

If any speech does need to be clamped down severely at a legal level, it's bullying in schools. That is a true epidemic

Not to mention repealing it entirely would remove separation of church and state

And now after reading the last sentence, i think i wasted my time since it seems to be just mocking the other thread
 
Ancient Herald said:
So it's okay to repeal the 2nd but not the first.

how can you have free speech without the second?

You can not have any sort of freedom if you do not protect it.

And the argument that the second should be repealed to the advent of new technology that renders it obsolete, i see no different than using that argument for the first.
Click to expand...

Obviously it would be like V for vendetta where the crowd of unarmed masked citizens walks right past the heavily armed military
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Speech is heavily regulated. Libel, slander, speech inciting imminent lawless action (e.g. yelling "fire"), fighting words and threats are all regulations. Protesters have to get permits for certain types of demonstrations. There are numerous regulations for advertising-related speech, particularly on products like medication. Campaign contributions are regulated. Street preachers and musicians have to get permits. And there's a lot more where that came from.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's really not a good analogy tbh...removing the 2nd amendment would leave it up to the states, while "freedom of speech" is already pretty damn worthless. It only protects the news and the lunatics on college campuses
 
TurtleDude said:
1) enhanced sentences for those who use guns to perpetrate crimes of violence

2) enhanced sentences for those who know or should know that they are transferring weapons to criminals

3) liberalized CCW carry provisions

4) ending Gun free zones, or requiring GFZs to have efficient and sufficient armed guards


I am in favor of indicting-for treason-politicians who try to infringe on the second amendment

as to the topic at hand, the first amendment and the second amendment both are of key importance truth should be an absolute defense except in cases of having security clearances and leaking information you learned only due to your clearance
Click to expand...

indicting for treason politicians who try to infringe on equal protection - there goes the entire republican party and most dems who've been in office more than 5 years
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Right, because there's no difference between having people get background checks before purchasing weapons and putting them in jail for merely having a weapon. :roll:
Click to expand...

If the background checks are not for putting people in jail, then there is no purpose to them and they are just a waste of time and taxpayer money.

The purpose of the background checks is to know who owns firearms and who to target when the tyrants do decide to take them away.

So, I see no appreciable difference.
 
chromium said:
indicting for treason politicians who try to infringe on equal protection - there goes the entire republican party and most dems who've been in office more than 5 years
Click to expand...

really

tell us why
 
ThePlayDrive said:
There's also the fact that speech is more of an everyday necessity than guns are. Every single person in the country needs and uses free speech everyday. The same can't be said for guns. In terms of practicality, the 1st amendment is more essential than the 2nd.
Click to expand...

You're conflating free speech with the mere act of talking. It's impossible for a government to ban any speech at all because, as you said, it's necessary for society to function. Using your definition, China and North Korea would have freedom of speech just because they permit everyday apolitical conversation, which is obviously ridiculous. Freedom of speech exists specifically to allow people to say things that a government might have an interest in preventing to maintain its own power.
 
TurtleDude said:
really

tell us why
Click to expand...

because federal court after federal court has ruled the politicians in almost every state and in both parties, but especially republicans, acted unconstitutionally in multiple ways when it comes to gay rights

if you're going to say that violating *your* interpretation of 2nd amendment is treason, i'm going to say that violating the 14th is treason and i will add, violated their oaths to uphold the constitution

it's certainly a greater offense than bill clinton's blowjob
 
chromium said:
because federal court after federal court has ruled the politicians in almost every state and in both parties, but especially republicans, acted unconstitutionally in multiple ways when it comes to gay rights

if you're going to say that violating *your* interpretation of 2nd amendment is treason, i'm going to say that violating the 14th is treason and i will add, violated their oaths to uphold the constitution

it's certainly a greater offense than bill clinton's blowjob
Click to expand...

wo what constitutional rights are you talking about. is this the subjective marriage issue vs the objective marriage issue

objectively men can marry women.

sexual attraction is the subjective issue

so if the constitution is based on objective actions where is the 14th amendment violation? Look I support gays being able to marry since there is NO RATIONAL reason to ban it and a law that does that fails the test of rationality. But claiming it violates the 14th amendment is a creative expansion of what is an objective test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom