Is "The pen mightier than the sword?" Which Amendment best fights tyranny, the First or the Second?

[Dead Parrot Society☮]

Considering the US government has tanks, drones, aircraft carriers, etc., and seeing how social media has aided in bringing down some of the most tyrannical regimes, which of our Constitutional Rights would be the most effective should our government turn on its citizens?

Please answer why and maybe an example or two...
Justgetitright: are you saying you think our fine men and women in the military, serving, getting maimed, injured, and killed to keep us free, would fight against their own people??

[Fledgling]

1st would be nothing without the backup of the 2nd.

[faithfulstraw952]

The 1st. Only delusional "gun enthusiasts" would think otherwise.
Besides, this idea that the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was established to arm citizens against the government is absurd. It was to arm people in order for them to police themselves and their cities/towns/homes/families back when it wasn't realistic for the U.S. military to get there fast enough to do so. A "well regulated militia".

[Loser]

Looks like the Barack auto-pen is in the lead these days

[clean truck]

The majority of the pens are held by liberals, so they are now useless.

[Thomas M]

2nd.
@slave of allah,
why doesn't the muslim world dis-arm?
Aren't you the piece full religion?

[justgetitright]

The entire military consists of about 1 million soldies, there are about 280 million guns in the hands of citizens. Many of these guns are owned by members of the National guard so getting our own tanks and higher grade weapons would not be as much of a problem as liberals would like to think.

The other benefit we have is the ability to fight guerrilla warfare where we appear to be sheeple. Our soldiers are pretty well dressed so picking out who we attack is going to be easier for us than it is for them. Look at al Qada, they have a very small army yet after 10 years of fighting they are still around blowing up or soldiers.

If Obama wants to use nuclear weapons, he will have to use them on you sheeple as well.

As a matter of fact, the 2nd amendment is in place exactly for this reason. Don't forget that for every soldier we kill, that is one more fully automatic weapon we own. We have literally hundreds of thousands of veterans that know how to operate all of the equipment that is in use today.

The 1st amendment means nothing without the second. What good does it to petition the government for the redress of grievances unless you have other options available to you,

[Thorcornâ„¢]

Those who say "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword" hasn't had just a pen against a bunch of illiterates with swords.

But the pen is "More Civilized"

For what that's worth.....

[Egg]

There is no doubt in my mind that it is the first amendment. Any future revolutions would have a social media army just like Egypt had. A successful revolution would hopefully not even require using guns at all since we could simply boycott and not spend money which would likely derail the economy. Having said that, I would prefer to keep all my freedoms and powers that were originally given to me including the second amendment. I am thinking mostly of the sheep herding effect - if you don't have weapons you can basically just be rounded up like sheep. Guns would force the opposing force to supply armor, weaponry, and other equipment to accomplish the job. This would slow them down and cause complications. Similar to how countries went about arming the Syrian rebels.

[Beardog]

If it came down to that, the government can turn off the Internet, although the NSA would lose valuable insights.