ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Vellatri]

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

Well...gee, I don't know. You know like maybe...you know when...state law conflicts with federal law?

A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

[Humerox]

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

A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

[Autotune]

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

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

there is nothing to interpret

[Humerox]

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

there is nothing to interpret

Stop trolling, lol. You can't actually think that.

[Autotune]

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

Stop trolling, lol. You can't actually think that.

I don't think it, I know it. You don't write a clear statement and then expect people to go "but what did they mean????"

It's wrote out clearly.

The only thing is, they had no idea what would or wouldn't be created from then till now.

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

[Resheph]

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

I don't think it, I know it. You don't write a clear statement and then expect people to go "but what did they mean????"

It's wrote out clearly.

The only thing is, they had no idea what would or wouldn't be created from then till now.

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

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...

[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.

[Autotune]

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...

I already answered this in what you quoted.

What you seem to forget tho, is that they already had weapons that could kill multiple people and they had tactics that a single person could kill multiple people.


What scares me are people that are as ignorant as you. You think banning "assault style" rifles will somehow limit the amount of people that can be killed at once, totally disregarding that with 2 pistols that have 10 round magazines can easily kill as many people. Even 1 pistol with a 10 round magazine. A man with 2 rifles each with 10 round magazines can do just as well from a distance as a man with 1 rifle and a 30 round magazine.

Your ignorance is far more frightening than someone who takes words literal written clearly.

[Humerox]

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

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

Redefines?

Define "arms" as it relates to the Constitution. Show supporting evidence.

That's your assignment, Jim.