I'd keep the first amendment because with it, people have the right to speak out against everything else. They have the right to gather people and have some kind or rally about it, and they have the right to write and petition these same problems.  

So, without any rights other that of speech we could regain all the rights that were lost?  We could implore the government to recognize our rights again?

i believe so. It can be said that in almost any oppressive government that there will be people who will risk it all to rebel. Look at any revolution ever. One way or another we would get our rights.

you say "One way or another we would get our rights", but in this scenario we have have to choose just one way.  You say "risk it all".  Is speech risking it all?  in whatever form one might decide to practice it?

Well, I believe with these rights we will be able to get all the rest back. Even if the government does not listen, people will be able to speak their minds against the oppression. We would eventually rebel against them. When I say risk it all, I mean people will be willing to give their lives for the cause.

How is it that people would come to "risk " their lives?  with speech alone?  And this "rebellion" that you mention, is it a rebellion of speech?  So, all rights would be restored because people ask for them and protest not having them?  Why on earth would a government bent on power relinquish that power?  would it be because someone asked them to?

Not with speech, they would fight against the government in any way possible if need be. Look at the American revolution, they wouldn't grant us our rights, so we fought them, and won in the end. People risked their lives for what they believed in.

Back to the original question.  Which one right would you choose so that you might win back the others?  The American Revolution was not won with speech.

I suppose which ever right it is, it doesn't matter. People will find a way. Life will find a way.

in that case, there was no point to the question.  right?

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

The second amendment is there, explicitly for self and national defense, but implicitly, within the context of other revolutionary documents, to allow the American population to arm itself, and to keep the civilian base of this nation always stronger than the government and any armies that government may levy against us.   What many people don't understand is that that very right, which is constantly under attack from anti-gun advocates, is also a responsibility.  It is not only our right to arm ourselves in defense of ourselves and our country, but it is our duty to arm ourselves in defense of the Constitution and those governed by it.  An armed man, even in a strictly authoritarian society, may say whatever he likes, because his right to say it cannot be taken away without resistance.

very well put.  I could not have said it better myself.

Well said!

yes, this is where the true intellects either live or visit often.

I tend to agree that the second amendment would be the one I would want to keep. You can talk to people as much as you might want with the first amendment, but it takes a show of force to actually get anywhere. Its our constitutional duty to keep our government in check, and those who would be the dumb sheeple and give a rats ass what our government is doing do not deserve to be protected by the constitution.

sheeple, eh?

Ok... we can call them the bovine masses too

lol

Thank you!

welcome. and apparently, I have typonese this evening so forgive the typos in my replies.

All is well.  There are worse communicable diseases to have.

Definately would keep the first ammendment...

If I didn't take a lot of risks...kept good company...did all the right things....played it safe always....the other missing amendments wouldn't affect me very much..

If they did...that would be my bad luck..

 

.but I need my voice...my freedom to be who I am and my freedom to worship...

"kept good company...did all the right things....played it safe always"

 

Wouldn't that sort of limit your free speech / freedom of association.

 

How, pray tell, would woulf defend or keep your 1st ammendment rights?

 

and, thanks for the vote.

As much as I dislike the babbling idiot, there's one quote by Rush Limbaugh, I have to agree with:

 

" You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. "

 

Without the Second Ammendment, we would have no other Rights!

I don't know if i would qualify someone as an idiot just because I do not agree with his speech. But, of course, that is your prerogative.  I can't help but think (notice that I go further than Rush) that the second amendment is the guardian of all of the others, to include the 1st one.

I would need days to reasonably answer this question, but it is important to note (I think) that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought!

why is that important to note?

The Bill of Rights being an afterthought is important to note because it illustrates the original focus of the framers of the Constitution. Taken alone the Constitution, without argument, an important document. However, what your question asks the reader to choose are not rights given by the Constitution, but by the Bill of Rights, which was and an amendment to the Constitution (an afterthought) solely for the purpose of "extending the ground of public confidence in the Government". They are two separate documents, conceived, crafted and ratified separately. And of the 27 amendments, only the first ten are ever really considered by your average citizen. (Least of all myself.)
-30-

The Bill of Rights does not "give" rights.  Therefore it doe not matter that it was a afterthought. It merely recognizes rights people were already endowed with.

Sorry sir, but you are wrong on that one. You might want to re-read the activities of the Federalists during that era.

The bill of rights is largely influenced by what are termed "natural" rights. "A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced". These rights are, my friend, thought to be any person's by birth. The bill of rights does nothing more than acknowledge and protect them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

 

I am not often wrong. So, it hurts when I am. Lucky for me this is not one of those situations.

OK, if you're east of the Mississippi I'll let this one slide. (I'd hate to hurt your feelings, but you are most decidedly wrong, Wikipedia or not.) Indeed they are natural rights, but the fact of the matter is that the ratification of the Constitution was held up on this very point, in that it did not recognize, with clarity, these "natural rights" you refer to. Thus the Bill of Rights. Surely you are not discounting the importance, historical or otherwise, of this document. (?) And if you are, you will be the first one I throw off the drifting boat!

You misunderstand me completely. I do not think that we are as far apart as you think. The "document" is quite important. But I am of the belief that one man can not "give" another man these sorts of rights. The most he can do is document them, acknowledge them and protect them. My "right", as it were, to be free does not come from man but from God.

Now the ball is in a different ball park... maybe even another time-zone. I apologize for missing the transition from the historic to the personal. Whoops!!! I nearly slipped there. But seriously folks... that is a pretty slippery evasive maneuver on your part! Really, quite slippery I must say. I give you an A+ for heuristic lubrication.

it not just personal, friend.  My line of thinking is in line with many of the founders.  In fact, it is not original at all.  

Ya, I know that it was a basis for many of the arguments... theists, deists and atheists all at each others throats... your God, their Gawd, no Ghad. It's truly wonderful that we have all survived to this point I say.
Hey! I knew Jefferson, and you're no Jefferson!  lol

So, you actually understand my point of view and that it is historical and not solely personal.  that would be my goal.  not that you agree but that you understand where i am coming from.

Yes. I understand your point of view.
And yes, you are still wrong in saying the the Bill of Rights does not give rights. Are you arguing that same point with everyone who has cited an amendment of their choice from the very same document? (That being everyone!)

If I am wrong, there are founders who are just as wrong.  That is pretty good company.  I am debating this point with anyone who brings it up.  You are the only one who made an issue of the Bill being an afterthought.  This was simply my answer to you as to why it did not matter.  By the way, I do not think you are wrong.  But, nor am I.

Wondering if the trend of your logic on this is related to historical revisionism? That would go a long way towards explaining why neither of us is correct since one or the other of is free to revise history as we see fit. (At least that's what I see you doing.)

Am I revising?  I think not.  That is not something I tend to do. 

Hmmm, I wonder why it's called the "Bill of Rights" then???

A bill is nothing  more than (in historical terms)  a list of particulars.  I don't derive any power or special-ness from the word "bill".