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 brainwrek
Originally posted by I AM LEGION
My opinion is the constitution is a stale piece of paper and should be abolished and all guns should be banned without exception. Strict license control should be enforced if any gun is issued for self protection which also includes background check and reason the person supplied for requesting gun.
Congrats for the most retarded post I have ever read on ATS.
When the government comes a calling for you, dont forget to bend over and tell them you like it rough.
An important note from the AP — the ruling did not explicitly strike the Chicago gun ban, but it will certainly result in the end of it:
It also leaves open less draconian measures to control the use of guns in states and cities, such as registration, limitations, and so on.
Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.
Originally posted by jeh2324
Somebody in Chicago is going to make some money with a gun shop!
Welcome back Chicago.
There is no way I wouldn't own and carry a gun in that city.
Originally posted by felonius
That guy is familiar. Its too old to be Hunter Thompson. Too young to be J M Browning. Who is that cat?
Originally posted by felonius
People that dont like our "stale paper" should be banned.
Originally posted by titian
What's funny and not at all unexpected is that Justice Sotomayer voted in the minority, or against it. Ironically she testified in her Senate confirmation hearings that the 2nd Amendment DOES guarantee the right to bear arms.
Once again, saying one thign to get appointed and doing another once you're there. Kinda like saying one thing to get elected huh?
Originally posted by apocalypsesound
I'm confused about how you all interpret the second amendment.
It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is in reference to a well-regulated militia, and only that.
Unless we are each part of a "well-regulated" (and who does the regulating?) militia, then no rights are bestowed.
If the first part of the second amendment can be ignored like this, then the last part can be interpreted to mean all sorts of things as well: why can't "arms" mean that I might have a storehouse of mustard gas at my farm to defend against mobs coming to take my property? Why doesn't "arms" also mean shoulder fired missiles, to defend against an invasion of America by a foreign Air Force (surely the most likely sort of invasion, if any were to be likely at all)?
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.
...it is generally accepted that the Four-teenth Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”
Even those who thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary believed that blacks, as citizens, “have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.”
“The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South. Finally, legal commentators from the period emphasized the fundamental nature of the right….In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.