ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

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

This stance isn't worth my time going over entirely with you again(simply because we have been through the motions and you acted with a child's rhetoric and logic), but the vagueness of the term 'arm' was deliberate. It is an umbrella term and if you can't admit that then we are done here because I know not to battle ignorance.

No...I'll admit I took it to the other extreme, but that was to prove a point. You still can't tell me what "arms" the Constitution says I have a right to bear, that is up to the courts and the people...and historically private rights are always balanced by public safety.

[Humerox]

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

If you are bringing up Australia again, then you clearly didn't read vellatri's response to the whole thing.

No...I read the study his response came from and the only source I could find on it was:

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

[Humerox]

Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst...

Clearly our dear Howard is as unbiased as the University of Sydney.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Humerox]

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

i make the best threads

Actually...you do. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Autotune]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Relevant link is relevant to this topic.

[Lord_Snow]

"I would love to leave my house unlocked when I go to bed at night, but lets face it people this is'nt Canada." -Justin Hammer

[patriot1776]

Fuck canada

[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.

[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.