BF2S Forums Freedom of Speech or Right to Bear Arms?

Sigh, people read into constitutions to much.

Ok, for those of you out there that believe your right to freedom of speech is natural, god-given, inalienable, and self-evident.....You're wrong.

First, freedom of speech isn't a right by nature, because nature is unfailable, but it is possible to voilate a person's rights, you can't violate a law of nature, so rights aren't a law of nature.

Second rights aren't god-given because god allows for the right to monarchy, the right to genocide, the right to slavery, all of which violate human rights.

Third rights cannot be inalienable simply by the fact that it is possible to take them away. You can take away a person's right to speech. Governments do it all the time.

Finally, rights cannot be self-evident simply because of the fact that we are arguing them now. Rights and their existance have been argued for centuries, and if you have to argue something, it cannot be self-evident.

Thus, rights are social constructs. Like any social construct, it only has value if you have some means to defend it. Thus the 1st ammendment would mean nothing if you didn't have the second ammendment to protect it. The second ammendment guarantee's an citizen the right to defend every other right in the constitution from foriegn or domestic oppressors. If a government takes away such a right, you are perfectly (under Locke) legitimate in any attempt you make to overthrow the current government.

This is a very very very basic principle of political philosophy and I'm surprised so many people on this forum don't know it.

Right to bear arms so that you can overthrow the government and get back freedom of speech.

IG-Calibre wrote:

PvtStPoK wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Freedom of speech all the way - the pen is mightier than the sword

sure thing its mightier, but is it that better now theses days? i mean, we see all over the world people against war in Iraq for exemple, celebreties, politicians, even  the average citizen of any given country can yell against the war, yet theres still a war going on there. what about if you have  a M95  .50 BMG? if you'd be stupid enough to try to kill Bush, the war might not be over tomorrow, but would it be next month?

for those pro-Bush and very proud of being american, dont worry, im not planning to kill him. Once i saw something at tv about the president's staff before he go visit someone in a country.  try to think of 2 Boeings 747 loaded with CIA agents armored trucks and cars. all of them are following Bush, so i'd be a complete dumbass to try to kill him.

the question has no bearing on "these days".  What this thread requires is to hypothesis 2 scenarios and which scenario would be better..

1 The right to have free speech, and therefore never bear arms - no if's, and's, or but's

or

2 The right to bear arms, and therefore forever loose the right to free speech  - no if's, and's, or but's

you cannot select 2 and then say you will acquire 1 as you have relinquished forever the right to free speech in payment for the right to bare arms, as the scenario stipulates & people seem to be failing to grasp.

If that Hypothetical scenario is the case, and there is some overarching protection of your freedom of speech, insofar as it is completely inalienable, then yes, freedom of speech trumps the right to bear arms.

However, I take issue with your Hypothetical as it fails the test of the real world.

commissargizz wrote:

Freedom of speech...here in the UK we have  some of the tightest gun controls in the world. I don't miss guns.
Also we are the most spied on nation in the world. In the West we are losing our freedom of speech. Laws are passed every day controlling us more and more. Both will be gone. 1984, Orwell got the decade wrong, 2084

2142*