3 ms·

Sure, but the 2nd ensures the 1st. Government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Only armed citizens ensure that.

• ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  There are other perspectives of that argument. 1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those protections have nothing to do with armed citizens. 2) Populist uprisings in many countries contain caches of weapons at the time it is deemed fruitful. 3) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it legal for citizens to own guns. 4) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it illegal for nearly all citizens to own guns. 5) Can you elaborate on exactly what the role of armed citizens is in making sure the government doesn't undermine first amendment protections? The only thing I can think of is killing judges, hanging senators, shooting pencil pushers that enforce the administrative aspects of onerous regulations. Is that an accurate understanding of the argument?
• yongjik 9y ago
  When US police officers are afraid of its citizens, more citizens die, because police officers are people and would rather be alive and sorry than be shot and dead. A government "afraid" of its citizens cannot function properly. If armed citizens ensure that, I'd consider that an argument in favor of disarming citizens.
• yodon 9y ago
  And the 1st ensures the second. Government is only ever afraid of large numbers of its citizens, the "lone armed guy" is simply too easy for the government to pick off individually. The NRA is feeding you large helpings of boondoggle in thinking the 2nd is important on its own. The founding fathers put the first two amendments together for a reason. They work together, not apart.