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 browsey
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.
Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by browsey
It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.
Originally posted by browseyNow my question is, even if apparent "Gun Nuts" realise there is a line, where should it be drawn? I mean what arms should (If any) be allowed under the second amendment, as it is, extremely vague. The right to 'bear arms' is extremely shrouded,
Originally posted by browsey it could include from a plank of wood as your arms, to guns, explosives, chemical warfare? Which out of any of these are accepted arms and where is the line drawn? and for how long?
Originally posted by browseyWill this mean that as any weaponry becomes available to the military, it will soon follow for citizens? Isnt that the point of the amendment to allow US citizens freedom of choice for 'defending' ones self?
Originally posted by browseyAnd my final question, who decides what 'weapons' are available for citizens as i imagine not all are readily available
Originally posted by SubmarinesEveryone seems to leave out the first part.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,,
This part states the reason that we were given the right to bear arms. IMO, there has been far too much interpretation to the 2nd ammendment. Independent interpretation has taken a simple sentence and created a monster.
Originally posted by SubmarinesI think if the Founding Fathers new that we would have small weapons that can cause mass destruction, this ammendment would have been written differently. On the other hand, maybe the Founding Fathers gave us way too much credit, and figured that we would be smart enough to read the entire ammendment as it was written.
D. THE ANTI-KKK ACT
Although the Fourteenth Amendment became law in 1868, within three years the Congress was considering enforcement legislation to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. The famous report by Rep. Benjamin F. Butler (R., Mass.) on violence in the South assumed that the right to keep arms was necessary for protection against the militia but also against local law enforcement agencies. Noting (pg.73) instances of "armed confederates" terrorizing the negro, the report stated that "in many counties they have preceded their outrages upon him by disarming him, in violation of his right as a citizen to `keep and bear arms,' which the Constitution expressly says shall never be infringed.
The congressional power based on the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate to prevent states from depriving any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property justified the following provision of the committee's anti-KKK bill:
That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony