English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since that is what is covered in the second amendment...

2007-04-19 04:42:16 · 18 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

I suppose one could say 1993 in Waco, Texas. The ATF was getting out of line under AG Janet Reno... and that standoff put to the American People the dangers of an uncontrolled Government.

Australia, GB, and Japan banning hand-guns hasn't prevented gun crime... nor does it guarantee that their governments WON'T at some point become dictatorial.

Look at Washington, DC and New York... BOTH have had handgun bans in place for 30+ years, and both have some of the highest per capita gun murder and gun crime rates.

I have no problem with restrictions on sales, background checks, and mandatory safety classes... all my weapons meet CA State laws.

2007-04-19 04:59:54 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1 1

Actually, the 2nd amendment does not overtly state that. However, the existence of an armed populace helps ensure against dictatorship. It is also insurance against invasion and occupation.

Not every soldier drives a tank and flies a fighter jet. Given a choice between defending my country with a rifle or a pitchfork, I think I'll choose the rifle.

Hey, the Vietnamese did not have as many tanks or fighter jets as we did, and they still drove americans out of Vietnam. The Koreans did not have as many tanks or fighter jets as we did, and america was driven out of North Korea. The Iraqi insurrgents have no tanks or fighter jets.

Another responder mentions a few farmers with rifles against the US army. Well, one would hope less than half the army supported a dictatorship--even though it is an all volunteer army. However, even in that case there are 200 million firearms in the United States, and roughly 1/3 of americans own a firearm. One third of 300 million is 100 million. One hundred million armed americans is more than a handful of farmers.

2007-04-19 11:46:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
---Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny does not necessarily mean dictatorship. Plus, as you can see, Thomas Jefferson says that arming ones self against TYRANNY in the government should be a last resort. So far, in our short 200 year history, We The People have not been push that far. However, considering who is occupying the White House right now, I would not rule such a thing out in the near future.

ALSO:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
---Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.
......

2007-04-19 11:53:26 · answer #3 · answered by ladykofnyc 3 · 3 3

when was the last time the government turned into a dictatorship never when was the last time a gun was used to save somebodies life everyday

2007-04-19 13:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

2007-04-19 11:49:30 · answer #5 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 3 2

Exactly. When was the last time anyone tried to make the US government a dictatorship? So by your reasoning the right to bear arms has been very effective.

2007-04-19 11:47:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

Yea, as if a few farmers with weapons (as when the document was written) could stop the U.S. armed services. The argument really is a sanctimonious joke.

2007-04-19 11:50:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

It has been awhile, maybe the second amendment is the reason why?

2007-04-19 11:53:02 · answer #8 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 2 2

Also, how are we going to free our brothers in Australia, Japan, and Britan? They banned handguns years ago, surely they must be living under a brutal dictatorship by now.

Oh wait, they aren't?
Sane theories: 1
Insane theories: 0

2007-04-19 11:46:34 · answer #9 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 3 5

And if a military dictatorship is in control of the US govt, how are ordinary citizens with rifles, shotguns and handguns going to defeat tanks, helicopters, and jets?

2007-04-19 11:46:18 · answer #10 · answered by go avs! 4 · 2 5

fedest.com, questions and answers