Does the 2nd amendment really prevent tyranny?

With all this talk and gun control proposals Obama is going to put in place with executive order, do civilian ownership of guns really prevent the government from becoming a tyrant? An example would be during WW2, when innocent Japanese civilians were put in isolated camps, while at the same time Japanese soldiers fought for America. The patriot act takes away a lot of our privacy, etc. Civilians wouldn't be able to fight the government head on but people can do what the insurgents in Iraq do. So does gun ownership really prevent tyranny?

No

Look at japan, no guns yet there's no tyranical gov't same with the U.K.

It's almost as though there's a logical pattern that escapes gun crazies....

With all this talk and gun control proposals Obama is going to put in place with executive order, do civilian ownership of guns really prevent the government from becoming a tyrant? An example would be during WW2, when innocent Japanese civilians were put in isolated camps, while at the same time Japanese soldiers fought for America. The patriot act takes away a lot of our privacy, etc. Civilians wouldn't be able to fight the government head on but people can do what the insurgents in Iraq do. So does gun ownership really prevent tyranny?

LegitGamer3212

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

It would give people a better chance fighting against a tyranical government. The people who says the military would easily destroy an uprising fail to realize the type of fighitng that would go on would be urban/guerrilla warfare where many of the advantages of the military has, like heavy armor, airpower, artillery, etc would be effectively nullified. History has shown that heavy armor performs extremely poorly in urban enviroments and the government isn't even willing to truely bombard foreign cities so there is no chance they would be bombing American cities with bombers or artillery.

This is not saying that an uprising would be easy with the second admentment because civilians generally lack training and discipline and at the start would generaly have to rely on numbers till experience is gained, but it would be far easier with the second admentment intact then without it.

It depends on the situation.

You have to be naive to believe that your guns are going to stop the government but also ignorant if you believe that our armies can simply annihilate a part of its population and actually win. Everyone is ignoring history here.

That said, our government is too incompetent which is actually our benefit in an odd way. As Americans, we should be concerned about the infringement of all our rights and not just the Second Amendment.

Nope. Look at all the countries that have a mere fraction of America's guns per capita and notice that a huge number of them aren't tyrannical. Winning rebellions requires a lot of popular and military support and a high level of organization, and in many cases foreign support.

Ever since I bought a gun, there have been zero redcoats forcibly entering my home. You can't argue with those results.

Your founding fathers thought it did and I don't think it could hurt. An armed population is obviously more capable of defending itself than an unarmed one. Where I live I'm not even allowed to own a crossbow for the purpose of self defence much less a gun :(

Look at japan, no guns yet there's no tyranical gov't

MakeMeaSammitch

I don't think that we should necessarily applaud countries simply for going a couple generations without an authoritarian goverment.

No, of course not. That doesn't mean the federal government can suddenly regulate what firearms I want to buy. My state doesn't have a problem with violence despite having plenty of guns. I don't believe that bureaucrats and politicansin Washington should delegate how many and what firearms I can buy. I'm sure if any gun bans do pass they'll sneak in an exception for the bodyguards that follow them around.

Ever since I bought a gun, there have been zero redcoats forcibly entering my home. You can't argue with those results.

Oleg_Huzwog

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ever since I bought a gun, there have been zero redcoats forcibly entering my home. You can't argue with those results.

CRS98

I never bothered counting the exact number of times they entered pre-gun ownership. That info doesn't seem relevant. The important thing is the number after, which is zero. Don't tread on me!

No

Look at japan, no guns yet there's no tyranical gov't same with the U.K.

It's almost as though there's a logical pattern that escapes gun crazies....

MakeMeaSammitch

They have no guns because in 1945 the US stripped them of all weapons and locked down the internal manufacturing of weapons as well as the importation of weapons through their ports.

Dozen years of occupation forces usually do that to a nation. Last time they had gun they kind of tried to conquer all of Southeast Asia.

No only conspiracy theorists think that.

The notion that it can actually prevent tyranny in the US in this day and age is severely outdated.

[QUOTE="CRS98"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ever since I bought a gun, there have been zero redcoats forcibly entering my home. You can't argue with those results.

Oleg_Huzwog

I never bothered counting the exact number of times they entered pre-gun ownership. That info doesn't seem relevant. The important thing is the number after, which is zero. Don't tread on me!

Maybe they decided to wear different colored coats now.

Betcha didn't think of that!

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="CRS98"] Did them redcoats enter your home pre-gun ownership?CycleOfViolence

I never bothered counting the exact number of times they entered pre-gun ownership. That info doesn't seem relevant. The important thing is the number after, which is zero. Don't tread on me!

Maybe they decided to wear different colored coats now.

Betcha didn't think of that!

Hmmm... you're right, I did not think of that. Perhaps the tyranny is still here? I shall investigate. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions on how to prevent tyranny from alternative color coats.

No.

Guns may be useful in certain unexpected crises, but government tyranny is not one of them.

Most of us are coming from a priveleged perspective where we're living in pretty good times relatively.

No, we don't have a tyrannical government right now, although some may argue we're slowly but surely headed in that direction. Abject apathy is a mistake we can only afford to make once. The 2nd amendment is our last ditch insurance policy in the off chance it really does happen. Take that away and we remove whatever safety net we have, as neutered as that safety net has become over the centuries.

Look at Libya. Where would they be without air support?

Syria now, the opposition can't win without at the very least, anti-aircraft weapons.

Do you suggest we allow people to buy rocket launchers

Most of us are coming from a priveleged perspective where we're living in pretty good times relatively.

No, we don't have a tyrannical government right now, although some may argue we're slowly but surely headed in that direction. Abject apathy is a mistake we can only afford to make once. The 2nd amendment is our last ditch insurance policy in the off chance it really does happen. Take that away and we remove whatever safety net we have, as neutered as that safety net has become over the centuries.

VoodooHak

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

nocoolnamejim

Think about it...those fighter pilots and tank commanders...what do you think they're going to do if their SO says "go bomb New York"?

Do you really think they would?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

Think about it...those fighter pilots and tank commanders...what do you think they're going to do if their SO says "go bomb New York"?

Do you really think they would?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

Think about it...those fighter pilots and tank commanders...what do you think they're going to do if their SO says "go bomb New York"?

Do you really think they would?

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

No

Look at japan, no guns yet there's no tyranical gov't same with the U.K.

It's almost as though there's a logical pattern that escapes gun crazies....

Wasdie

They have no guns because in 1945 the US stripped them of all weapons and locked down the internal manufacturing of weapons as well as the importation of weapons through their ports.

Dozen years of occupation forces usually do that to a nation. Last time they had gun they kind of tried to conquer all of Southeast Asia.

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

UnknownSniper65

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

Think about it...those fighter pilots and tank commanders...what do you think they're going to do if their SO says "go bomb New York"?

Do you really think they would?

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

UnknownSniper65

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

UnknownSniper65

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

nocoolnamejim

I don't like those laws, which is why I don't live in New York. The only reason to register firearms is to make them easier to take away. The magazines limits are purely arbitary numbers. Do those 3 rounds in a magazine really make a huge difference? Gun control groups are playing a political game of inches. They realize eventually every inch they gain on the issue is going to add up.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

Aljosa23

In which case it would be moral objections that prevent tyranny and not guns right? But in answer to your question, military is trained to obey. We've carpet bombed plenty of brown people in the past. But even if they were inclined do disobey... If there was ever ACTUALLY a serious second civil war, and if the federal government ever actually was tyrannical, then HELL YES that bombing would get carried out. Tyrants don't actually accept "Dude, I don't feel right about this" as an excuse for not doing something. That particular fighter pilot doesn't feel like bombing New York? Shoot him in the head after raping and killing his family in front of him. Have a few other fighter pilots watch. Want to make a bet on whether the next guy up says "no" to the order in question? True tyrants don't ask for permission and don't take no for an answer. Which means that, again, having any gun you damn well please wouldn't mean **** in the modern era.nocoolnamejim

After the difficulties we've had in 'backwater nations' the past decade, I don't see how anything short of a nuclear attack would pacify an uprisen American populace. You think a few insurgents with IEDs are difficult, just wait till every Bob, Tom and Joe are sniping from their front porches, or wherever you go to eat, or worship, or work, or whatever.

There's a difference between fighting an enemy a world away, and living among him.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

MgamerBD

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] In which case it would be moral objections that prevent tyranny and not guns right? But in answer to your question, military is trained to obey. We've carpet bombed plenty of brown people in the past. But even if they were inclined do disobey... If there was ever ACTUALLY a serious second civil war, and if the federal government ever actually was tyrannical, then HELL YES that bombing would get carried out. Tyrants don't actually accept "Dude, I don't feel right about this" as an excuse for not doing something. That particular fighter pilot doesn't feel like bombing New York? Shoot him in the head after raping and killing his family in front of him. Have a few other fighter pilots watch. Want to make a bet on whether the next guy up says "no" to the order in question? True tyrants don't ask for permission and don't take no for an answer. Which means that, again, having any gun you damn well please wouldn't mean **** in the modern era.br0kenrabbit

After the difficulties we've had in 'backwater nations' the past decade, I don't see how anything short of a nuclear attack would pacify an uprisen American populace. You think a few insurgents with IEDs are difficult, just wait till every Bob, Tom and Joe are sniping from their front porches, or wherever you go to eat, or worship, or work, or whatever.

There's a difference between fighting an enemy a world away, and living among him.

An armed population is certainly more dangerous than an unarmed one. Not sure what the argument is there.

Yes it does, history has shown us time and time again what happens when weapons are given to a sole power of rule

An armed population is certainly more dangerous than an unarmed one. Not sure what the argument is there.

sonicare

People are saying it won't make a difference one way or the other, which I think couldn't be further from the truth.

You know it would be fun to see a bunch of white people in the suburbs trying to fight the army

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]None of that sounds bad.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.Laihendi

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.

• ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
• NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.

For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.

UnknownSniper65

I don't like those laws, which is why I don't live in New York. The only reason to register firearms is to make them easier to take away. The magazines limits are purely arbitary numbers. Do those 3 rounds in a magazine really make a huge difference? Gun control groups are playing a political game of inches. They realize eventually every inch they gain on the issue is going to add up.