Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depends on the nature of the uprising. If it was a mass of people with signs, yes, it'd be police. But if they got violent with their guns that the 2A says they have the right to have, the military would treat them as domestic terrorists.
103 pages and I can't still understand DV1033. He says he is not for banning of firearms, yet he makes every argument for it.
But that's not as confusing as the comment that 223 years is a long time in history. I thought we learned in 3rd grade that Government started about 5000 years ago, no?
Depends on the nature of the uprising. If it was a mass of people with signs, yes, it'd be police. But if they got violent with their guns that the 2A says they have the right to have, the military would treat them as domestic terrorists.
C'Mon. You're not going to send infantry, or motorized divisions when NYU students revolt. You'll send riot police, and SWAT if revolters are "hot."
Oh, and the moment blood is shed, the regime is over. Ugly.
C'Mon. You're not going to send infantry, or motorized divisions when NYU students revolt. You'll send riot police, and SWAT if revolters are "hot."
Oh, and the moment blood is shed, the regime is over. Ugly.
Except, NYU students aren't the ones crying wolf whenever someone proposes gun-purchase restrictions and thinking "my hunting rifle will stop the government".
Except, NYU students aren't the ones crying wolf whenever someone proposes gun-purchase restrictions and thinking "my hunting rifle will stop the government".
That's metaphysical my friend. WhipperSnapper made this point very eloquently a few pages back.
You are so not a sane arbitrator for 2nd amendment rights.
actually I think he is a bit too sane. me on the other hand, I think that there should be no gun control laws at all.
why you might ask? gun control laws only effect 1 class of people. the law abiding citizen. laws do not affect the criminal as they do not follow the law in the 1st place. federal workers do not follow the law either, because at work they get to go around all those gun laws with no recourse at all from the public.
that means that politicians make gun control laws so that it only effects the law abiding, the 1 class of people who put them in power.
get rid of all gun control laws so we can even the playing field all around for everyone.
Except, NYU students aren't the ones crying wolf whenever someone proposes gun-purchase restrictions and thinking "my hunting rifle will stop the government".
The 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting. when will you liberals understand that?
Why do you suppose that's the global standard from a public safety
standpoint?
Why are you liberals so anxious to "keep up with the Joneses" when it come to American policy? Just last night I was watching Racheal Maddow and she was going on about the "botched" execution in AZ and how "we are the only civilized country in the world who does this anymore" and blah...blah....blah....blah.... Just more liberal hate. This is AMERICA!!!! Not the UK or China or Japan. If you're trying to convince me that this country should do something, don't say it's because some other country does it, I couldn't care less what other countries do, I couldn't care less what the international "model" is, and I don't think it's a good idea to do something just because "everyone else is doing it" that way.
Quote:
I guess I was giving you too much credit for critical thinking. A federal
system is far more efficient in regulating and of the registration of
guns. There are quite a few loopholes that make the "strict laws" in one state
weaker when next to a state with looser gun laws. Weapons and narcotics laws are
things best left to the federal level instead of a patchwork of state laws.
Constitutionally speaking, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate the peoples right to keep and bear arms. You don't have to like that fact, you don't have to think it's still relevant in this day and age, but if you're being honest, you at least have to admit it. The 2A strictly forbids the Federal Government from regulating arms, and that's exactly what the founders wanted, to appease the anti-federalists who were worried that the federal government would disarm the citizens militia's in the several states. Why are you so willing to just ignore the Constitution and pass illegal laws?
Secondly, if you think the majority of Americans will willingly register their firearms with the federal government, you're crazy. For proof, just look at the resistance to the new "assault weapon" registry requirements in the states of Connecticut and NewYork. Mass numbers of people are resisting, and good for them, I say!
There's plenty of people who make the argument that guns are a right because people hunt with them.. Just look through this thread.
I do not have to look through the thread. all I have to do is read the 2nd Amendment. there is nothing in it at all about hunting.
but it does say that the peoples right shall not be infringed. that means that government shall not make 1 law against the people right to keep and bear arms at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
