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 itsallintheegg
Why people cant see that I dont know. Im sure they have just been over-emotionalized by this latest event, but that's no reason to give up your rights to protect yourself.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by elysiumfire
The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.
III. DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The only mention by the United States Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed found the right to be protected from any infringement, including the state slave codes. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote that citizenship "would give to persons of the negro race .. the full liberty of speech ... and (the right) to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857). In other words, if blacks were citizens, then the Second Amendment would invalidate state laws which prohibited firearms possession by such citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."
The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''
The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.
Originally posted by jimmyx
Obama hasn't killed any children. provide clear and positive evidence of this, or you are just another one of the hundreds of Obama haters on this site.
I've seen many American posters sarcasticallly claim cars, knives, drugs blah blah blah....kill people, should they be banned too???
Well, I own a car here in the UK, to do so, first I must pass a driving test, then as a new driver, insurance companies make it difficult for you to own an expensive car to start with by charging a premium for new drivers, I then need the car to pass an MOT MOT? which is every year and road tax either every six months or yearly.
Shouldn't a tool soley designed to kill (self defense or not) have even stricter rules and laws than owning and buying a car, a person before even being able to own or fire a gun should be able to prove safe gun control and have some kind of physc test?
Shouldn't a person who then owns guns have police vist there homes to make sure the owner keeps their guns safe and out of reach of others? If a person in the household is suffering a mental illness, shouldn't someone in some kind of medical or police authority be told, even moving the weapons to somewhere more secure till the person can prove they are safe to be around weapons and shouldn't this be done routinely?