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.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Wait I take that back. My father was tied up and held at gunpoint at his job at Kennedy Airport. Sometime in the sixties. My dad served in the navy in WWII. Still never felt the need to own a weapon.
No need to belittle my experience with ain't that special church lady righteousness.
One of my father's cousins had a gun. His ten year old son shot himself in the foot. Good thing it was pointing down.
originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Feltrick
THis is a thread about Guns, not cars, alcohol, etc.
(yes I would give up cars and walk or ride bikes everywhere if everyone else had to as well, bring back horses)
originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: amazing
A rifle is one of the best choices for self defense. Specifically home defense.
With proper ammunition selection 223/.556 reduces overpenetration issues caused by handgun ammunition and buckshot/slugs that shotguns use.
Also, see my previous post about home invasions involving multiple armed attackers. In those cases, handguns put the victim at a disadvantage.
To add, many police departments have sidelined pump shotguns because they have been proven to be less effective against criminals armed with semi automatic rifles and body armor.
A well known incident for those in the law enforcement/gun community.
(bracketed, bolded comment added by me, all other emphases mine)
The term ["arms"] was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Organ Guns (or War Carts) were primitive, yet effective, multi-chambered and multi-barreled monstrosities. As early as 1339, a firearm called the Ribauld, or Ribauldequin, was mentioned as a having several iron tubes that were arranged to fire stone projectiles simultaneously.
In 1382, the army at Ghent had 200 battery guns. A design constructed in 1387 had 144 barrels grouped in batteries of twelve allowing twelve salvos of twelve balls each to be fired. In 1411, the Burgundian army had 2,000 battery guns at their disposal. Louis XII (1498-1515) is reported to have used a gun having 50 barrels arranged to be fired in a single volley.
In 1717, James Puckle demonstrated his gun, called the Defense, to the English Board of Ordnance and a patent, number 418, was granted in London on May 15, 1718, on a single barreled gun with a revolver-like mechanism that allowed a semblance of rapid fire operation. In a demonstration in 1722, Puckle’s gun fired 63 shots in seven minutes; a truly remarkable performance at this time period.
originally posted by: jupiter869
This is a serious question because I'm honestly curious:
Would you be willing to give up using semi-automatic guns for entertainment purposes at a range (or anywhere else) if you knew giving it up meant the lives of 50 people would be saved? (or even one life?)
I do happen to know they're a real rush to use, but Is the entertainment value of using them worth more than the life of a person to you?
I'm not really talking about making gun control laws, I'm wondering how much you really value a semi-automatic rifle.
originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Loque76
...We know, for instance, that private citizens could own cannons...
...I don't care if you have a firing range for your howitzer or your tank, nor do I care if you own a fully loaded F-18 and an aircraft carrier.