“Do I think the First Amendment is obsolete?”

It is rhetorical and does not matter what a person may think the first Amendment of the United States Constitution is a step made on basic principle and legal Precedent in a direction of expression to the order of Constitutional law. At some level as basic principle it must present an obsolete appearance. In every day chat it nothing more than a head start that is given in legal order. As judicial impartial curtesy. It is an admittance to the lack of self-value in writing, words spoken, and artwork, it goes on to describe the ability to form new religions and formation of congregation by grievance. In opposition to all United States Constitutional rights addressing a person right to liberty and self-value.

Obsolete is only saying used less today then other times in history and no longer can hold amending self-valued. The First Amendment is incomplete as there have been no constitutional description given before or after that can details the difference made publicly between the two words. “Freedom” meaning having no self-value or cost, and the word “liberty” meaning there is in fact some form of value, be it self-set or appointed value, such as life then happiness by independence holding others cost publicly while they are understood and shared.

Fire-arm legislation is formed on this public grievance by principle. Which is why it falls under Amendment two made on the United States Constitution. However neither of these amendments clearly describe any detail that would give amendments merits above and beyond the United States Constitution.

I think when you type anything on the Internet or talk in person, what should run through your mind is not 'how much can I get away with saying?' but instead 'how little can I actually say that hasn't already been said and that will contribute to the conversation?'.

Too many humans like to operate with 'as much as they can' but I have experienced in my life that being a 'risky type' is a lot less rewarding than being a 'well-timed' type. This doesn't mean be the quiet guy who everyone thinks is a serial killer or quiet girl who everyone thinks is a loser, it means be the guy who times his speech well and speaks words that even his enemy/ies can't help but nod along to or be the girl who speaks when it is about to enter 'awkward silence' and says something that everyone who hears it can relate to.

To me it's not just about staying out of prison, it's about thriving out of it. It's not about 'not being a threat' to any authority, it's about being someone who is there to nurture the victims of this world.

Why focus on hurting bad people? No seriously, why do this? You will always find people willing to hurt you back or expose you for what you did to hurt them. Instead, you should focus entirely on helping victims and perhaps even convincing a few enemies to join your way of thinking.

I'm just saying, I don't think protecting freedom of expression is what a constitution should do when you're not allowed to speak against national security amongst other things. I think that it should instead outline what kind of things you should aim to say and also which to avoid speaking.