Your quote from U.S. v Miller says otherwise. FYI the courts can rule any legislative act unconstitutional
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
- Thread starter eagle1462010
- Start date
Text history tradition says otherwiseSome semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
Your quote from U.S. v Miller says otherwise. FYI the courts can rule any legislative act unconstitutional
Dumbfuck...
... in what year was Miller decided?
... in what year was the weapons ban passed?
... now kick yourself in the ass for being such a retard.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
Plus nearly every merchant ship carried cannons and private warships were common when the Constitution was ratified.Pretty much. The first artillery unit in the US was the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.
A PRIVATE organization.
Dumbfuck miller hasn't been over turned as a matter of fact Buren fortified the ruling. There will never be another unconstitutional assault weapon banDumbfuck...
... in what year was Miller decided?
... in what year was the weapons ban passed?
... now kick yourself in the ass for being such a retard.
Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
In violation of US V Miller which you so kindly showed us.
Dumbass.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,060
- 52,345
- 2,290
Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
And banning them did nothing........
Dumbfuck miller hasn't been over turned as a matter of fact Buren fortified the ruling. There will never be another unconstitutional assault weapon ban
No one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
In violation of US V Miller which you so kindly showed us.
Dumbass.
LOL
Says you, a dumbfuck. The weapons ban was challenged and the courts upheld it.
No one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
No, it is quite apparent that it is YOU who don't understand the ruling. The fact is not one of the legal challenges to the AW bans referenced Miller.
Not one. If they had, they would have won.
LOL
Says you, a dumbfuck. The weapons ban was challenged and the courts upheld it.
Because no one referenced Miller you retard. If they had, they would have won their case.
Buren is the end of gun controlNo one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,060
- 52,345
- 2,290
No one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
It never went to the Supremes, you dumb ass........
And Separate but Equal was affirmed by the Supreme Court too...you dumb ass...
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,136
- 47,288
- 2,180
Not constitutionally. Your belief that if the government violated the Constitution in the past that means it's justified in doing so again isn't good logic. It's the thought process of a thug.Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
No, it is quite apparent that it is YOU who don't understand the ruling. The fact is not one of the legal challenges to the AW bans referenced Miller.
Not one. If they had, they would have won.
Retard, it would have lost. But I do like your argument -- Conservatives were too stupid to effectively challenge the weapons ban.
It never went to the Supremes, you dumb ass........
And Separate but Equal was affirmed by the Supreme Court too...you dumb ass...
So? The courts still rejected every challenge.
Not constitutionally. Your belief that if the government violated the Constitution in the past that means it's justified in doing so again isn't good logic. It's the thought process of a thug.
Yes, fucking moron, constitutionally.
Retard, it would have lost. But I do like your argument -- Conservatives were too stupid to effectively challenge the weapons ban.
No, they would have prevailed. You forget the SCOTUS loves them their "precedent". Especially the Progs. They live and die by precedent, so, as usual, you are wrong.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,136
- 47,288
- 2,180
wrong, dumbass.Yes, fucking moron, constitutionally.
No, they would have prevailed. You forget the SCOTUS loves them their "precedent". Especially the Progs. They live and die by precedent, so, as usual, you are wrong.
No they wouldn't have. The Miller ruling was in regards to a "well-regulated militia." That would have limited guns to a "well-regulated militia."
Similar threads
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 487
- Replies
- 111
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 579
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 299
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 219
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 5
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 235
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 47
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8300
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-