It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

page: 15
34
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What does the Constitution have to do with a profit hungry indusrty selling dangerous weapons to an un-skilled public ?


You mean automakers?




This lawsuit is as logical as suing Honda because of drunk driving.




posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

Private ownership of cannons was there and lawful. And owning cannons are still lawful and popular.

Just like the repeating rifle was available during the construction of the Constitution.

And....just as the 2nd does not state anywhere, there are restrictions on arms, or the people owning them.


So.....



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
18th century Americans did not own cannons, either. Those were war weapons, like tanks or nukes today. It's an absurd comparison. a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme


Ahhh....yes they did, and the British regulars marched to Concord to seize them. And they also owned state-of-the-art long guns and black powder too. Many of the same ones as the British regulars. The anti-gun movement would have you believe they all showed up on the field with Attle-Attle's and spears against the British regulars with smooth-bore flintlock muskets. The colonists had at their side the same deadly weapons as their enemy. What they didn't have much of, at the start, was formal (i.e. regular) training (i.e. a well regulated militia). They were trained in the 1763 manual of arms, but as for formal training as an army, that was lacking.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

i was just gonna point that out, lol

I WANT A CANNON!



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
18th century Americans did not own cannons, either. Those were war weapons, like tanks or nukes today. It's an absurd comparison. a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme



As others have stated, they actually could own cannons. They could even own warships if they had the money, and Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution even implies this by granting Congress the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

What if i told you:



Now that is mind blowing.

I guess he should be sued.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Cannons would be antiques. They can be owned, just like a Gatlin gun.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
That was merely an observation, not a criticism. a reply to: Daedalus



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I stand corrected. a reply to: vor78



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Actually, pre-1898 weapons are classed as antiques (according to Rick on Pawn Stars), and the rules for them are different. a reply to: Daedalus



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

right, but the point is that 18th century americans had cannons...



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

And people make them now, and you can own them. New or antique.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

i know this....and i still want one....but they're expensive.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

One of my neighbors makes them as a side business in his machine shop.




top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join