Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I know the red/blue ignorance clubs have done their best to make people think that support of the rights described in the first and second amendments are mutually exclusive, but I assure you that's not my stance.


sort by: page size:

I prefer my first amendment rights just as they are, thank you very much.

I don't care about the first amendment, as it doesn't cover me.

Please don't assume that I am speaking about that.


I'm no fan of the First Amendment but to say that neither the founders, nor the Supreme Court, nor the American people have failed to consider this point is laughably condescending.

1st and 2nd Amendments, baby

The great thing about the First Amendment is that people's rights don't end based on the opinion of one ignorant person. And the great thing about the Second Amendment is that it exists to protect the First Amendment, because the founding fathers knew there would eventually be ignorant people who didn't understand the underlying purpose of the First Amendment.

I'm not even trying to be passive aggressive here (I'm aware it sounded that way initially), it's the literal truth. Give it a re-read. (I should make that into a bumper sticker)


Even if the First Amendment doesn't protect it, it most certainly does not prohibit it.

First amendment - yes, in most cases. Second amendment? Hell no.

Your perspective is narrow, but I respect your freedom to have an opinion and express. If you cannot see the relation between downvotes and the first amendment then I can simply disagree with you, but not downvote you for how you see things.

That you like some of the people exercising their First Amendment rights more than others is irrelevant.

The first amendment confers no rights; it restricts congress. The second amendment confers absolute rights; the restrictions on, say, youths and felons are blatantly unconstitutional.

I'm not sure if you know what the "first amendment" is. I'll tell you what it isn't, it's not a magical trump card that lets you say whatever you want.

The first amendment doesn’t grant those rights, it merely enumerates and protects them. Just because it isn’t necessarily illegal doesn’t mean rights aren’t being violated.

Just because the Amendment doesn't apply doesn't mean the ideals behind it are irrelevant. I could choose to exclude all individuals of a certain race from my home. No law could prevent me from doing that. But people would still be against me for the same reasons that there exists laws that prevent discrimination by government or businesses. It just seems most people do not articulate the difference between 'wrong because I like the First Amendment' from 'wrong because I like the ideals behind the First Amendment'.

Just because you don't agree with the speech protected by the 1st amendment doesn't mean that you won't give your life protecting it.

First amendment begs to differ

And? Are you therefore anti 1st amendment?

Yes. I'm heartened to see that someone in this thread understands what rights the First Amendment actually guarantees.

I think it's more accurate to view the first amendment as a limit on government, not as a fundamental right the government gives to all people, in all circumstances.

There is something better and it's called the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
next

Legal | privacy