ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Vellatri]

The authors of the Constitution understood that weapon technology changes over time - they had experienced rapid advances during their own lifetimes. They understood that the Constitution may need to change over time, so they provided a process for doing so - ratification. The Supreme Court is not granted the power of ratification in the Constitution.

If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.

[Humerox]

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

If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.

And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh.

[OforOppression]

Because you can claim to know exactly what the authors of the second Amendment were thinking.

[Vellatri]

I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.

[Humerox]

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

I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.

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

[Aeolwind]

Wyoming going the extra mile:

http://www.kgwn.tv/story/20627910/pr...de-federal-law

Here in Tennessee they are drafting similar legislation.

[Humerox]

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

Wyoming going the extra mile:

http://www.kgwn.tv/story/20627910/pr...de-federal-law

Here in Tennessee they are drafting similar legislation.

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.

[Arclyte]

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.

It's cute watching you pick and choose which parts of the constitution to honor based solely on your shitty opinion

[Humerox]

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

It's cute watching you pick and choose which parts of the constitution to honor based solely on your shitty opinion

Hey smart-ass...tell me what arms the Constitution says you can bear.

[Autotune]

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

Hey smart-ass...tell me what arms the Constitution says you can bear.

all of them.