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 bloodWolf762
reply to post by brainwrek
No, an automatic weapon is not by definition an assault rifle. Legally, to be considered an assault rifle, it need only have a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:
pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock, and grenade launcher.
Being automatic does not even factor into the equation.
Originally posted by merkaba93
The Second Amendment has been eviscerated by this ruling.
It says that some regulation is "reasonable".
Wrong. Any law abiding citizen should be able to possess weapons of current military technology.
It says that the right is protected to have a gun in one's home for self defense.
Wrong! The Second Amendment is about the Militia and defense against tyranny. It is not about self defense in the home. That is a by product. Of course a Militia member would have a firearm in their house.
To return to the Republic we must return to the Militia. Through the Militia the seed for self reliance of communities is planted and grown.
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.