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.
The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today.
Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun?
Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing?
Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category
originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66
If I call somebody a bunch of names and or make false statements about them, that person has to prove that my words damaged their reputation, if that can not be show to be true then I will not be punished by the State for my words or statements.
I honestly don't know how you can't understand this.
But I also think a state should be able to limit you to certain quantities and types of guns, as high powered automatic weapons just seem unnecessary to me.
originally posted by: fencesitter85
Self defence seems to be the main argument, which is precisely why I'd want a hand gun if I could. But I also think a state should be able to limit you to certain quantities and types of guns, as high powered automatic weapons just seem unnecessary to me.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: fencesitter85
Your not biased, you just have no understanding about the situation in the US. I dont blame you for that, you dont live here, but it does disqualify you from advising Americans about gun rights and gun control.
Thanks.
originally posted by: fencesitter85
Christ, 19 pages :l
Can't possibly respond to everyone so please don't take it personally, or as avoidance of the subject. It's clear that I didn't use or understand the term 'assault rifle' correctly so consider me educated on that one now.
There's a lot in this discussion that I agree with, and some things I don't, but that's the beauty of discussion I guess. I still think there's nothing wrong with state laws being able to restrict type/quantity of weapons purchased, and I firmly believe that being able to buy a gun in wal Mart using your ID is absolutely nuts - and pretty irresponsible.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66
You need some reading comprehension lessons, the tenth states that any thing NOT addressed in the cotus or prohibited there by is left to the states or the people. Guess what the second amendment is addressed by the cotus abs it states that it shall not be infringed.
Jaden