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.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Maxatoria
Traditionally "arms" meant weapons that could be hand (arm) borne by a soldier. Initially clubs and other melee weapons, then knives and swords along with spears and arrows then with the advent of gunpowder, firearms (as was the case in the time of The Revolutionary War). They had naval war vessels as well as cannon but the Second Amendment maintained a reference that was applicable to the militia (civilian infantry) not a naval or even artillery force. Tanks and fighter jets were a long way off but dont meet the standard of being carried in ones arms. One could however, justify automatic weapons and even some anti-tank weapons but that is subject to debate. Regular small arms as we know the term today; however, should be covered based on the original intent of our founders.
Originally posted by vor78
I think its reasonable to assume that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapon classes available to civilians in 1776, plus their technological descendants. This would include virtually everything available to the American public today.
That's the most restrictive interpretation I can make of the 2nd amendment. The authors of the Bill of Rights weren't fools. They may not have been able to foresee fully automatic weapons, for instance, but clearly, they were smart enough to realize that technology would eventually render the musket as obsolete as a military and defensive arm just as it had the bow and arrow a couple hundred years earlier. They wouldn't have intended to limit the American people of their future to defending themselves and their country with obsolete technology.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Lonewulph
protection would include protecting your family and nation from tyranny.
therefore, whatever the tyrant can bring to bear against you, you are (supposed to be) able to to bear against them. This is the whole concept behind the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.
This concept is solidly established via various SCOTUS rulings, etc. I am unsure why, given all the understandings provided by various officials, the term "gun control" is even a discussion.
Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Cosmic911
To your last point it was quite unbelievable that Congress had exempted themselves from the Insider Trading Laws (at least until the 60 Minutes piece came out)....and over in the European Union; those (unelected) officials voted themselves except from taxation. Incroiable, n'est pas?
Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
The right to bear arms started here in America, when a rag-tag group of revolutionaries beat down one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The founding fathers gave , we the people, the right to possess and use the very same instruments of war and defense as they possessed.
Now our American government spends more money on defense than any other nation; has in place NDAA and The Patriot Act and is seeking to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights. How can we not have the right to possess only a small percentage of the weapons our government has ?? If we are not heading towards tyranny, than where are we headed??
Originally posted by angrysniper
Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
The right to bear arms started here in America, when a rag-tag group of revolutionaries beat down one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The founding fathers gave , we the people, the right to possess and use the very same instruments of war and defense as they possessed.
Now our American government spends more money on defense than any other nation; has in place NDAA and The Patriot Act and is seeking to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights. How can we not have the right to possess only a small percentage of the weapons our government has ?? If we are not heading towards tyranny, than where are we headed??
No, they did not GIVE us rights. I am really sick and tired of reading this on this forum and from people of all walks of life that do not understand that no one GIVES us rights. They created a government which has a duty to PROTECT those rights.edit on 28-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)