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 Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Please enlighten me, Lex. You know...since we have whole fields of study dedicated to understanding things like...you know...Constitutional Law.

If everyone had a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and laws, we wouldn't need courts and lawyers and all that nonsense now would we?

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

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.

See..now that's an argument that could fly. The problem is...and think about this one...that argument would do gun owners more harm than it would good.

Would you agree?

[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 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.

[Lexical]

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

Please enlighten me, Lex. You know...since we have whole fields of study dedicated to understanding things like...you know...Constitutional Law.

If everyone had a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and laws, we wouldn't need courts and lawyers and all that nonsense now would we?

Some of us Humerox don't read one or two lines from the constitution than try to make a legal argument about federal law. Also, with this post you highlight your ignorance on the subject yet again. I again request for you to stop posting.