You see, there is a difference, one that is painfully obvious, yet seems to be largely ignored by certain individuals who try to hide behind the first. Let's start by stating the intent behind this amendment and follow the trail from there. When the founders of this country proposed the amendments, one thing was painfully clear to them at the time, that of freedoms, given that they had been under the oppressive thumb of the British crown and were in the midst of a revolt. I propose that their thoughts were to create a country without the possibility of an oppressive government and, at the same stroke, justify their revolutionary actions to the rest of the world.
After the revolution however, they realized that some of the actions they themselves took could not be condoned outside of the specific situation they found themselves in, and the drafting of the original documents that founded the nation reflect very careful thought along these lines. Here are two specific examples:
1. They gave the right to bear arms, but not to use them against others
2. They gave us the freedom of speech, but not action
These examples highlight a common element, that of a freedom of expression, but not the execution of the thought. This is a huge difference when considering the recent events in the media. We have a right to express ourselves, in other words, a peaceable demonstration. We do not have the right to rioting and violence. We have the right to express our thoughts publically and openly, but we do not have the right to act on those thoughts, especially if there is a law against it. Notice that given the absence of a law, we are still not automatically granted a "right" to act. In these cases, we are left to our own moral judgement and have a choice to act, not the right. If we chose to act, there may well be consequences as a result of our actions.
