Originally posted by WaterBottle
Nothing will happen. Gun nuts are all talk and no bite.
[size=4]Why didn't you start a revolution when the first assualt weapons ban took place a couple decades ago?[/size]
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain
semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".
Or for all the current assault weapon bans that have been going on in multiple states for years now?
In addition to New York (see above), Massachusetts and New Jersey have enacted similar bans. Cook County of Illinois has enacted a similar, but
more restrictive ban. California enacted one of the first bans on semi-automatic rifles in 1989, adding stricter measures to the law several times
since. Connecticut has enacted a partial ban that focuses on assault weapons with certain characteristics. Hawaii and Maryland have assault pistol
bans pertaining to assault weapon characteristics only and pistols.
Or the patriot act?
Or the NDAA?
Yeah.....that's what I thought.
Guess the only amendment you all care about is the 2nd one. Kind of sad really..
edit on 9-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
I agree with the sentiment that we should care more about other rights
and loss of those rights as well. But I think your logic fails on a
First of all, I don't think there were an overwhelming majority of people who really believed they "were coming for our guns" with the last assault
weapon ban. The political and social climate was a little bit different back then.
Secondly, while it may seem that many people "only" care about the second amendment, understand that many people believe the second amendment is
necessary to defend the rest of them (potentially from our own leaders if the case may arise-- which I pray it never does.)
And for those who say armed citizenry is nothing compared to a military giant-- that is true, to a degree. But understand that a military giant is
less gigantic when many of their numbers may include citizens unwilling to kill their own people under orders.
Also consider-- imagine for a moment (in this rather fantastical and hypothetical situation) that your loved one/s are being held captive, against
their will, inside of a building. You have a small band of very well-armed friends (say 10) against 50 "enemy terrorist kidnappers" inside this
imaginary building. Now-- in which situation would you feel better about storming the building-- if the guys inside all had handguns, or if they all
had only knives
Imagine that scenario the other way around... you're defending a building that is your home against a group of "invaders." How well would you want
them armed? It may not seem
at first glance, like an armed citizenry is any kind of protection against a better-armed government-- but no
matter how you slice it, an unarmed
citizenry makes overt and brutal takeover a no-brainer.