ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

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

all of them.

Says who?

[Autotune]

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

Says who?

where does it say you can't?

[Humerox]

Here's the correct fucking answer, gents. The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.

When they do, you guys might have something to bitch about. Until then,you're full of shit.

[Autotune]

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

Here's the correct fucking answer, gents. The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.

When they do, you guys might have something to bitch about. Until then,you're full of shit.

and you're full of shit.

[Autotune]

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

and you're full of shit.

They said arms as in all arms, if they wanted people to have inferior arms compared to the standing army, they'd have stated it like that.


Aka, you can stfu.

[Autotune]

This isn't the bible where you try to interpret the words and phrases to benefit your ideals and how you think things should be or should have been.

[Vellatri]

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

They can't override the Supremacy Clause.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

If they try, they'd be attempting to ignore one part of the Constitution to "protect" a perceived right in another.

Morons.

Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

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

Um yeah. On an off note...that's really a pretty stupid remark. I know you're not stupid...but that statement sure is.

All I did in the post prior to that one was repeat what the authors had already written. There was no guesswork involved.

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

And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh.

Thank you. It's simply the result of being logically consistent. If "arms" means, well, "arms," then it is apparent that this would be the only legal course of action. Anything else is void ab initio.

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

The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.

Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.

[Humerox]

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

This isn't the bible where you try to interpret the words and phrases to benefit your ideals and how you think things should be or should have been.

Lol...wut?

[Humerox]

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

Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

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

[Lexical]

Humerox, you have yet to demonstrate a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and its laws. Until you are able, I firmly request for you to stop posting.