It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by txinfidel
I stopped reading here...."high-powered automatic weapons" when the author can;t understand simple facts there is no point.. Until the anti-defense crowd gains a small understanding of weapons and our current laws....I can not have an intelligent discussion.
I spoke too soon perhaps.....I read this as gun regulation being a state issue.....I can agree with that.edit on 16-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)
I am going to say something that many on here will not like and will probably find hard to handle.
One reason the Second Amendment was written was so that the people of the states could challenge the government if the need ever arose.
This would mean that the people would in fact need the same fire power as the government.
Of course we can not afford most of the "arms" the government has at their disposal but we should be able to own whatever we can afford.
The Constitution was written to protect the American People, not the Government.
According to a 2003 Gallup/NCC poll, most Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership. Points in their favor:
• A clear majority of the Founding Fathers unquestionably believed in a universalright to bear arms.
• The last time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the civilian militiainterpretation of the Second Amendment was 1939–almost 70 years ago, at a timewhen policies enforcing racial segregation, banning birth control, and mandatingrecital of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools were also considered constitutional.
• The Constitution is a document, not a piece of software.
Regardless of why the Second Amendment justifies its own existence, the fact remains that it stillexists as part of the Constitution.
• The Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition; the Twenty-FirstAmendment overturned it. The American people have the means, through thelegislative process, to overturn the Second Amendment if it is no longer considered worthwhile. If it’s obsolete, why hasn’t this happened?
• The Constitution aside, bearing arms is a fundamental human right. It is the onlymeans the American people have to reclaim control of their government, should itone day become irredeemably corrupt.
The same Gallup/NCC poll cited above also found that 28% of respondents believe that the Second Amendment was created to protect civilian militias, and does not guarantee the right to bear arms. Points in their favor:
• While the Founding Fathers may have supported the ownership of slow,expensive powder-loaded rifles, it’s doubtful that they would have been able to conceive of shotguns, assault rifles, handguns, and other contemporary weaponry.
• The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment,
U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns.
The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation,and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.
• The Second Amendment makes no sense without the prospect of civilian militias,as it is clearly a propositional statement.
• If you really want to overthrow the government, bearing arms probably isn’t enough. You’d need aircraft to take the skies, hundreds of tanks to defeat ground forces, and a full navy. The only way to reform a powerful government in this dayand age is through nonviolent means.
• What the majority of Americans believe about the Second Amendment is unsurprising, because
Americans have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment accomplishes and how federal courts have traditionally interpreted it.
The individual rights interpretation reflects the view of the majority of Americans, and more clearly reflects the philosophical underpinnings provided by the Founding Fathers, but the civilian militia interpretation reflects the views of the Supreme Court and seems to be a more precise reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered automatic weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.
As Josh and others noted, not only were automatic weapons not used at any recent high-profile mass shooting, they’ve been essentially illegal in the U.S. since 1934 and since 1986 they’ve been almost impossible to come by. Justice Stevens also repeated his error a few paragraphs down:
Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.