ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you seriously think that, when the Constitution was written, they intended on citizens carrying weapons capable of killing 20+ people?

People who take a document written over 200 years ago literally scare me...

That's why there's more than one school of thought when approaching the Constitution.

Ahem...for AUTOTUNE...Constitutional Theory 101:

There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called "originalists." Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called "non-originalists." In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain "fundamental rights" that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.