eclectica
2004-07-21, 12:47
Amendments #1 and #2 to the US Constitution were among the first ten amendments added to it in 1791. You can read the US Constitution here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html).
Amendment #1 reads:
"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 #2 reads:
"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."
Even though the first amendment is about freedom of speech and the second is about the right to bear arms, they are both related. Their importance lies in the empowerment given to the people to defy the government. The first amendment allows one to defy by way of speech, and the second amendment allows one to defy the government by way of force. The framers must have understood that freedom has no meaning if it is not defended with force. Thus the second amendment is there as well.
Today due to partisan thinking you may find those who are Democrats supporting the first amendment and those who are Republicans supporting the second amendment. But anyone who is a supporter of freedom ought to support both amendments strongly. Many people who call themselves "liberals" don't understand that freedom must be defended with force and as a result think that the second amendment is outdated or unnecessary.
In Iraq the insurrection of Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers shows the importance of both amendments. First the United States shut down his newspaper al-Hawza, violating his first amendment rights. So his militia struck back and exercised their second amendment rights by resisting the occupiers. Had he not been willing to use force then he would have been destroyed and tyranny would have prevailed instead.
Let the scholars in their ivory towers beware: Freedom must be defended with violence, or it means nothing.
And I would like to say that the philosophies of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King were all failures because they believed in passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience as the ultimate solution.
Amendment #1 reads:
"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 #2 reads:
"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."
Even though the first amendment is about freedom of speech and the second is about the right to bear arms, they are both related. Their importance lies in the empowerment given to the people to defy the government. The first amendment allows one to defy by way of speech, and the second amendment allows one to defy the government by way of force. The framers must have understood that freedom has no meaning if it is not defended with force. Thus the second amendment is there as well.
Today due to partisan thinking you may find those who are Democrats supporting the first amendment and those who are Republicans supporting the second amendment. But anyone who is a supporter of freedom ought to support both amendments strongly. Many people who call themselves "liberals" don't understand that freedom must be defended with force and as a result think that the second amendment is outdated or unnecessary.
In Iraq the insurrection of Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers shows the importance of both amendments. First the United States shut down his newspaper al-Hawza, violating his first amendment rights. So his militia struck back and exercised their second amendment rights by resisting the occupiers. Had he not been willing to use force then he would have been destroyed and tyranny would have prevailed instead.
Let the scholars in their ivory towers beware: Freedom must be defended with violence, or it means nothing.
And I would like to say that the philosophies of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King were all failures because they believed in passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience as the ultimate solution.