Does the 2nd amendment really prevent tyranny?

  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for LegitGamer3212
#1 Posted by LegitGamer3212 (1619 posts) -

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?

Avatar image for dave123321
#2 Posted by dave123321 (35340 posts) -
What we have is an apathy and ignorance problem
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#3 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

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....

Avatar image for buccomatic
#4 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

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

yes it does.

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

Avatar image for MgamerBD
#5 Posted by MgamerBD (17550 posts) -
No. I the government wanted to, they can destroy us with or without the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts act like they have gunships in their backyards.
Avatar image for Shadow_Fighter
#6 Posted by Shadow_Fighter (223 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for MetalDogGear
#7 Posted by MetalDogGear (825 posts) -
Lol. Where is this wide-scale tyranny you people keep talking about You all read too much and think too little. First of all, a wide-scale civilian man-on-man neighbor-on-neighbor war is highly implausible. You're talking about soldiers fighting soldiers and civilians. You're talking about police officers shooting the people down. You're talking about martial law and possible airstrikes. Cities on lockdown. Phones tapped, emails monitored Take off your Orwellian goggles for a bit bro. They're cutting the circulation off to your brain
Avatar image for leviathan91
#8 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#9 Posted by comp_atkins (34508 posts) -
"without this gun, the king of england could come in here anytime and start pushing you around"
Avatar image for Barbariser
#10 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
#11 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

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

Avatar image for KingKinect
#12 Posted by KingKinect (543 posts) -

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 :(

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#13 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#14 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for CRS98
#15 Posted by CRS98 (9036 posts) -

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

Oleg_Huzwog
Did them redcoats enter your home pre-gun ownership?
Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
#16 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

[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

Did them redcoats enter your home pre-gun ownership?

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!

Avatar image for Wasdie
#17 Posted by Wasdie (53493 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#18 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30138 posts) -

No only conspiracy theorists think that.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#19 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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

Avatar image for CycleOfViolence
#20 Posted by CycleOfViolence (2813 posts) -

[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

Did them redcoats enter your home pre-gun ownership?

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!

Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
#21 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

[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.

Avatar image for one_plum
#22 Posted by one_plum (6506 posts) -

No.

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

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#23 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#24 Posted by BossPerson (9177 posts) -
[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]No. I the government wanted to, they can destroy us with or without the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts act like they have gunships in their backyards.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#25 Posted by BossPerson (9177 posts) -

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

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#26 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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
So aspiring freedom fighters wouldn't be able to get their hands on guns without the second amendment?
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#27 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15153 posts) -

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#28 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit
You're missing the point a bit. The point is that technological developments mean that, unless you arm ordinary citizens with tanks and fighter jets, it doesn't matter what guns you give them. The technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the idea that giving people access to any gun they want is IRRELEVANT in terms of it being an effective deterrent against government tyranny. Put more bluntly: Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#29 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15153 posts) -

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

nocoolnamejim

You're missing the point a bit. The point is that technological developments mean that, unless you arm ordinary citizens with tanks and fighter jets, it doesn't matter what guns you give them. The technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the idea that giving people access to any gun they want is IRRELEVANT in terms of it being an effective deterrent against government tyranny. Put more bluntly: Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.

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?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#30 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

You're missing the point a bit. The point is that technological developments mean that, unless you arm ordinary citizens with tanks and fighter jets, it doesn't matter what guns you give them. The technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the idea that giving people access to any gun they want is IRRELEVANT in terms of it being an effective deterrent against government tyranny. Put more bluntly: Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.

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?

If New York was taken over by terrorists I don't see why they wouldn't.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#31 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

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

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

You're missing the point a bit. The point is that technological developments mean that, unless you arm ordinary citizens with tanks and fighter jets, it doesn't matter what guns you give them. The technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the idea that giving people access to any gun they want is IRRELEVANT in terms of it being an effective deterrent against government tyranny. Put more bluntly: Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.

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?

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.
Avatar image for MetalDogGear
#32 Posted by MetalDogGear (825 posts) -

[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.

To be honest though, if I was japanese, I'd try to conquer the chinese.
Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#33 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#34 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

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
The horror...
Avatar image for MgamerBD
#35 Posted by MgamerBD (17550 posts) -

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

I present to you The Battle Of Athens.

Umm...Ten....Tennessee.

br0kenrabbit

You're missing the point a bit. The point is that technological developments mean that, unless you arm ordinary citizens with tanks and fighter jets, it doesn't matter what guns you give them. The technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the idea that giving people access to any gun they want is IRRELEVANT in terms of it being an effective deterrent against government tyranny. Put more bluntly: Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.

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?

Yeah. You just have to change the terms. "Rebels", "Charlie", "terrorists" you underestimate the power of the military and the way they use words to dehumanize the enemy.
Avatar image for MgamerBD
#36 Posted by MgamerBD (17550 posts) -

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
Omg. You mean people have to get tested to prove their sanity every five years now? Or that they will monitor how much ammunition you need? Whatever will we do with these safer laws which will decrease the chance for another mass shooting. :roll:
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#37 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30138 posts) -

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

None of that sounds bad.

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#38 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

[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

The horror...

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.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#39 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

[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

None of that sounds bad.

We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#40 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15153 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#41 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

[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

Omg. You mean people have to get tested to prove their sanity every five years now? Or that they will monitor how much ammunition you need? Whatever will we do with these safer laws which will decrease the chance for another mass shooting. :roll:


They don't decrease the chance of another mass shooting one bit.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#42 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30138 posts) -

[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

None of that sounds bad.

We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.

Well I guess you do need one now.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#43 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[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.

Very true, which is why it's unwise to judge the US government's ability to stifle a domestic armed uprising based on its ability to do the same on the other side of the globe.
Avatar image for sonicare
#44 Posted by sonicare (55530 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Kamekazi_69
#45 Posted by Kamekazi_69 (4704 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Jagged3dge
#46 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#47 Posted by BossPerson (9177 posts) -

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:

Avatar image for Laihendi
#48 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

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

Aljosa23

We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.

Well I guess you do need one now.

Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#49 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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

Well I guess you do need one now.

Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".

That's fine with me
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#50 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[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

The horror...

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.

The ONLY reason to register firearms is to make them easier to take away? There's no other possible reason why someone would want to make people do that?