It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

We Need Common Sense Abortion Restrictions

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:53 AM
Let's see what the supreme court has to say:

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.
(bracketed, bolded comment added by me, all other emphases mine)


on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
(many thanks to randomtangentsrme for the link)

It sure looks like the legal scholars of today think that the legal scholars of the past were well aware of what advancements might be made and still chose not to limit the types of arms (excepting "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity") we, the people, could keep and bear.

Anyone trying to make the argument otherwise is attempting to advance a position which, "borders on the frivolous."

Saying that weapons of the time were not as efficient or that they could not fire the number of projectiles current weapons can may be technically correct, but implying that they were unheard of is erroneous.

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.

Rapid Fire Weapons Before Maxim & Browning

Considering the fact that the men who wrote the constitution were among some of the smartest, most educated men at the time, it is fallacious to think that they could not envision an advance in the technology of arms. The technology was there and to think that that they thought it would never advance is to not give them the credit they are due.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:56 AM
a reply to: Metallicus

There needs to be a 3 week waiting period before politicians can open their damned pie-holes.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:08 AM
What I have found is many people do not understand that there are laws on the books that already limit who can own a fire arm. Mental illness already is one of those reasons, despite the calls for additional laws to be passed dealing with this very issue. For a quick list of those prohibited individuals, take a look at Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ATF In addition to Federal Laws, many States have their own laws on gun control. It is not the absence of laws, in my opinion, but rather lack of enforcement of current gun laws. Many times we see our lawmakers calling for more laws, but they fail to enforce the ones we already have. Passing a law is going to do little to combat this issue. Rather, you are going to see a politician pat themselves on the back for "doing something" but not really accomplishing anything.

We can debate back and forth on the 2nd Amendment, but I don't see either side budging from their position. Gun control laws were passed shortly after the death of JFK and sadly I think we will continue to see more death and more push for additional laws. My biggest concern is if we further limit the 2nd Amendment, how long before we see other rights get changed under the blanket of "National Security." Will we see the 4th Amendment eased also for search and seizures? Or how about the 1st Amendment about what you post online or what the media is allowed to report? I just hope people really think about what they want when they start calling for their rights to be limited. Whether you agree with gun ownership or not, I see this as a much larger issue. Sometimes reactive calls for changes based on emotions can cause unintended consequences later on down the road.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:00 AM
We need people to mind their own business and stop been fixated and hypnotized on women private parts rights and leave women uterus along.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: marg6043

marg, I luv ya, but you fell for the trap.

Please go back and read the thread.

(think onionish)

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I read it, I just could not help myself this morning,

That is why I didn't address the post to anybody.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:49 AM

originally posted by: introvert
What about criminals that have been convicted of crimes that involve firearms?

If a criminal has been convicted of a crime that involves a firearm, there's a high probability that the crime was a felony or other crime which would trip the existing laws preventing those types from purchasing firearms and resulting in failure of the background check.
edit on 16-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in