Charlton Heston Quote - National Press Club, February 11, 1997

[TRguy]

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows 'rights' to exist at all.

Charlton Heston Quote - National Press Club, February 11, 1997

http://www.save-now.com/news/archives/Charlton-Heston-Gun-Controle.htm

Who today is willing to go into the den of liberal media and speak such honest truths??????? Charlton Heston was without doubt a National Hero. The first white actor to march with the civil rights movement for rights to African Americans. The most steadfast defender of the 2nd amendment that,"the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy..."

 

[TheOldPro]

If you have Nancy's email address handy, you might want to send it to her. I doubt you will find much argument in this forum on the topic.

 

[TRguy]

Not really looking for an argument, mainly just to remind everyone what a great man he was and when reading his words how cool and collected he had to be to say them, where he said them, and when he said them.

It is easier for a man to speak when he speaks from principal rather than polls.

We need a leader like that today in this new Obamanation anti gun environment.

 

[#18indycolts]

the quote about the 2nd amendment being america's first is a false justification on the peoples right to bear arms. America's amendment, our first right to all citizens is the freedom of speech, not the right to bear arms. Freedom of speech is much more important...

 

[HiBC]

CHARLTON HESTON LIVES!!!!!!

We need 85 million bumper stickers.Charlton Heston Lives

Mao said "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Political power is the power to coerce

Those who aspire to more political power aspire to coerce.

Those who will not be coerced are the stewards of Liberty

Those who will give up their arms are complicite in loss of Liberty.

They enslave their Grandchildren.

 

[Jart]

the quote about the 2nd amendment being america's first is a false justification on the peoples right to bear arms. America's amendment, our first right to all citizens is the freedom of speech, not the right to bear arms. Freedom of speech is much more important...

Since neither of us was there, we'll likely never know but I'm of the belief there was no intention to prioritize the things by number.

If memory serves, they started out as twelve and two didn't make it. Both of the two orphans were "ahead" of the "first" amendment.

But if all 12 had been adopted, the connection between numbers of representatives and congressional pay scales to "rights of the people" would be pretty tenuous. Throw the two overboard and "Bill of Rights" makes right jolly good sense as a name. The "Bill of Rights, Representation, and Remuneration" would not roll trippingly from the tongue.

Feel free to pick your favorite and nominate it as "number 1". Personally, I think Moses' nomination is as good as any.

Proposed:
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_cong.htm

The whole banana:
http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

 

[#18indycolts]

I was merely commenting on Heston's quote:

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment.

and that I disagreed about the right to bear arms being more important than freedom of speech. And I'll say it again: Freedom of Speech is much more important.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

The Second Amendment acknowledges the right that protects all the others. That is what makes it more important than the First.

 

[44 AMP]

A moments pause should be taken, to study history

And I'll say it again: Freedom of Speech is much more important.

While freedom of speech is more often used, without arms, how do you exercise that freedom of speech if the ruling govt disagrees with you?

In the years before the American Revolution, we used our speech. We used our voice. We petitioned for the redress of grievances. And we were not completely alone, there were Englishmen who also spoke on our behalf.

The answer was that our concerns were dismissed, or ingored. The Crown did as they saw fit, without regard to our wishes. They had the power, they could, and did ignore our speech.

What they could not ignore was our arms, and the will to use them. All our Founding Fathers, (including those seldom remembered individually, as they were not public figures) lived through this time. Even the most radical revolutionaries started out trying to work through the system.

So what are the options when the system denies you your rights? After you ohave done all that the system allows you to do, I see only two. Comply, or resist. Our founders chose their path, and did not do so lightly. And it was the ownershhip of arms that allowed them to have a choice.

That, puts me in agreement with Mr Heston, and many others.

 

[#18indycolts]

So we should turn to guns first and our speech second in a debate or upheaval? Seems borderline primitive to me.

So what are the options when the system denies you your rights? After you ohave done all that the system allows you to do, I see only two. Comply, or resist.

I agree there, but like you said, that was after we tried using our speech.
Also, those weren't our rights yet, don't forget that the constitution was written after the revolution. One of the main reasons for the war was to rid ourselves of british rule and taxes, allowing the U.S. to run its own government. Therefore allowing us to have certain rights that we (sort of) still have today.

 

[OnTheFly]

If you are speaking of the order in which the rights should be used, then yes, speech comes first.

As far as importance, I think they are equal. You won't have freedom of speech if you have no way to defend your rights should someone want to take them away; and you can't keep your firearms unless you have the right to speak your mind when others are trying to step on your 2A rights.

Fly

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

All the BOR are interactive and equally important. Many gun owners would infringe on speech and religion. Many free speech advocates would infringe on gun rights.

Citing examples has been done many times.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Which is more important, the first or the second? I say, neither of them are more important than the other. They are equally important. Granted, the first gets overtly used much more frequently than the second. And yet, the implied threat that the second brings is what lends weight to the first. Without the second, the first is toothless. Without the second, the .gov has no reason to respect us.

A similar concept applies on the international scene, between nations. The first amendment is analogous to the department of state. Here is where peaceful exchange of ideas occurs, this is where the dialog happens. It is balanced by the implied threat that the military brings in the form of the department of defense (or, historically and I feel more accurately, of war). Without the implied threat of force to back up the diplomacy, the diplomacy is worthless -- with no military the diplomats are paper tigers. Hopefully, the military never gets actively deployed and the diplomats get all the glory. But without the military's implied muscle nobody would take the diplomats seriously.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While freedom of speech is more often used, without arms, how do you exercise that freedom of speech if the ruling govt disagrees with you?

That is why the founding fathers made it the first amendment and protected it so that the government could not do that.

In reality, the notion of ranking of importance is something of a chicken and egg problem for the amendments. Which did or should come first? It depends on your perspective. Pro gun people, like Heston, feel the 2nd amendment should have been listed first as it is felt to be the most important. I don't actually believe for one second that the founding fathers spent much time on determining the order so as to reflect importance. The amendments addressed several issues the colonists felt were unfairly handled via the previous government and so the founding fathers sought to keep the new government from being able to make those same mistakes.

However, there are those who believe that the order is of importance and that the founding fathers listed the first amendments (Bill of Rights) in an order that indicated their importance and they saw them at the time, that the order was anything but arbitrary.

 

[44 AMP]

Drifting...?

I don't think there is any sense in arguing that the numerical order of the amendments signifies their order of importance. The order was changed several times during various drafts. I believe the Second was at one time, the fourth.

What is important is the idea that the subject of the Second amendment, our right to arms is the most important when things reach the stage of last resort. Colonists used every means available to them, all their 'rights" as Englishmen, before resorting to armed uprising.

One thing people of that era understood is that when the world comes down to its most basic and brutal, there is nothing in this world that you own, including your very life, unless you can defend it.

Our Founders considered our right to arms, freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and many other things to be basic natural rights. Not granted by government, and so not able to be denied by such. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights we have, it is a list of things the government must not do!

They understood that taking up arms was the choice of last resort. But the considered it a valid choice. And in order for the chioce to even be possible, the arms had to be in the hands of the people in the first place.

They worked long and hard to craft a system of government where we should never have to worry about having to make that final choice. The system is self correcting to a huge degree. But, it isn't perfect.

Other nations with democracies and republics have fallen to dictatorship, several within the last century. We are in a very good position against that, but, our system in not immune. No system is, or can be, thus the need for "eternal vigilance".

Is the sky falling today? No, not today.
Tomorrow?
No, I don't think so.
Then when?
The day we stop watching it.

 

[HiBC]

Which leg of a stool is most important?

It takes heat,fuel and oxygen to have a fire.Which is most important?

Lose one ,lose them all.

The founders wrote a list of God given freedoms,and forbade the government from tresspassing on them.

If the government breaks any of the Bill of Rights,we have no first or second ammendment.We have a government that has failed.The oath of office is to uphold the Constitution.

With all due respect for the spiritual beliefs of everyone,I am concerned that twisting the anti-establishment clause of the First Ammendment to divorce government from acknowledging God nullifies the concept of God given Rights.
Then,the Bill of Rights becomes Government Regulated Rights.