Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

bowens43

(16,064 posts)

5. Of course not and that was never the intent of the founding fathers......

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:58 PM

Jan 2013

the 2nd amendment was about PROTECTING the government from foreign and DOMESTIC threats. If the founding fathers weren't so opposed to a standing army the 2nd would never have been written.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you believe individual gun ownership prevents dictatorship, or could do so? [View all] Ken Burch Jan 2013 OP

Sure as hell didn't stop Hitler. kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #1

Search kaboom15 Jan 2013 #17

Yes, but that law was only directed against all enemies of the state and "non-Aryans" in general.... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #20

Gun ownership BY ITSELF may not prevent dictatorship, but it didn't hurt the Founding Fathers derby378 Jan 2013 #2

the revolution was successful because Britain was so far away and the french were on our side..... bowens43 Jan 2013 #8

Without the French fleet and French ground troops thucythucy Jan 2013 #28

Sadam is the poster boy of why it is bunk. nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #3

Yeah, because all of the countries with gun control have been taken over by Fascist dictatorships n2doc Jan 2013 #4

I'm not endorsing the proposition that guns stop tyranny Ken Burch Jan 2013 #10

I wasn't really addressing this to you, but to those folks voting 'yes' in your poll n/t n2doc Jan 2013 #11

Of course not and that was never the intent of the founding fathers...... bowens43 Jan 2013 #5

I'm not actuall ENDORSING the proposition behind the OP question. Ken Burch Jan 2013 #7

It doesn't and it can't. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #6

The purpose of the amendment had nothing to do with "tyrannical' Gov. and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #9

You are misusing words. former9thward Jan 2013 #16

no I am not, but thanks. and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #31

Apparently "Red Dawn" is three voters' favorite movie. 11 Bravo Jan 2013 #12

Will owning guns keep a bank from foreclosing on your house? Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #13

I think it encourages dictatorship. The 2 sides locked into that power struggle dominate patrice Jan 2013 #14

Not a magic insurance policy but it doesn't hurt. TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #15

Under Saddam, every Iraqi household was allowed one AK47 arely staircase Jan 2013 #18

To be honest, it might hold it back..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #19

Not really, no Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #21

The 2A only lets us attempt to not be willing victims. ileus Jan 2013 #22

Using nukes to subdue your own population? JVS Jan 2013 #23

I was using it to illustrate the idea of not fighting unless you went into the battle Ken Burch Jan 2013 #25

It helps wannabe dictators form armed gangs to overthrow the elected government. Odin2005 Jan 2013 #24

I voted no. bitchkitty Jan 2013 #26

Dictatorships are installed without violence; They are overthrown by decay and outside force. FarCenter Jan 2013 #27

Individual gun ownership did nothing for Shay's Rebellion, thucythucy Jan 2013 #29

Individual Gun ownsership is irrelevenat in the face of a military discatorship Oakenshield Jan 2013 #30