Yet another school shooting.

[Coronius]

If he's 14 he wouldnt go to prison. Probably some thing for minors and he lived in a good neighbourhood i take it? Where people probably wont be in for long = no assrapings.

[Innoc]

In all fairness, assuming Burma had no restrictions on firearms, you're talking about a group of people that probably would not have been armed with them anyway...unless I am completely out of touch as to what constitutes a monk in Burmese society.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Innoc

In all fairness, assuming Burma had no restrictions on firearms, you're talking about a group of people that probably would not have been armed with them anyway...unless I am completely out of touch as to what constitutes a monk in Burmese society.

Burma was used as an example that genocide and oppressive governments still exist in todays world. Other groups of people, besides monks have been rounded up in burma. Some of the numbers are in the thousands murdered by the government. The monks might not use firearms to defend theirselves, but other people might.

--------------------------------------

People like to brush off the past genocides with the comments "that can not happen today" - yes it can and yes it does.

The ownership of guns is required for free society. If the ownership of firearms has been outlawed, then the public is at the mercy of two groups of people - the criminals and the government. Only time will tell which will be more cruel.

For a society to have a true republic, the citizens must have to right to vote, legal recourse, right to worship and the right to write.

Thomas Jefferson:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write.

Lastly, the citizen must have the right to own a firearm. When all other rights have been stripped away, the right to own a gun is what will ensure the return of the republic.

The American revolution proved this to be fact. Under King George II, or fore fathers had little or no rights (do we really need a history lesson on this point?). Through the militia, and private gun ownership the colonies revolted and formed the republic of the United States of America. This nation set an example by the revolutionary war (1775 - 1783) of what private gun ownership is possible of.


The choice is clear:
Own a firearm and be a citizen, vote, read the news paper, ask the elected officials questions and do your duty to ensure the future of the republic.

Or, give up your firearm, do not vote, do not read the newspaper, be enslaved and wear the name of servant.

[v3rtigo]

Wow, talk about shallowminded

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by v3rtigo

Wow, talk about shallowminded

Who's shallow-minded and why?

[Coronius]

Guns ARE bad, but im a badboy. *cool*

[Bubbles]

Gun owners have small penises. Glad to have contributed to this thread. Good night.

[SizeableSSonic]

I knew this thread was going to turn into this.

[Coronius]

well tbh, we already talked about guns and the news have been given. so imo /thread

[~kev~]

Yea, I got off a little bit of a rant - sorry about that.

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

I knew this thread was going to turn into this.

Just like every other thread about guns.

[Boogieman117]

School shootings are overrated, I'm not scared of guns in school. I'm fearing guns in church now.

[uBeR]

Gun ownership is not a right. It's a privilege. Militias outside of the federal military have the right to bear arms (a good example would be current-day state militias). This made sense in colonial times. The colonists had distrust in standing armies. They had local militias who defended their settlements from American Indians and other European powers. They drafted the Second Amendment to insure the federal government could not disarm state militias. The Constitution states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Consider yourself lucky to be allowed to register for guns.

And I think if you review the court cases, you will see they tend to agree with me. For example, U.S. vs. Miller clearly showed that the Second Amendment will not and cannot protect the right to bear unregistered arms. This was the last Supreme Court case to address the Second Amendment, so it still holds. In '83 the Supreme Court rejected to hear a case on the Second Amendment in which a lower court ruled a local ordinance that banned handguns was constitutional. Many laws in the meantime have placed strong bans on semi and fully automatic weapons.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Gun ownership is not a right. It's a privilege.

Is that your final answer?

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Gun ownership is not a right. It's a privilege. Militias outside of the federal military have the right to bear arms (a good example would be current-day state militias).

Living in Texas, I do have a right to own guns, as described by law.

Texas Penal Code - http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

Most states have laws, though little known, stating that every able bodied male over the age of 18 is in the militia. If this nation were ever invaded, you sir would be required to defend it, or be shot as a coward. Take your pick.

[uBeR]

Right. Texas has the right to do that. I'm talking about the United States Constitution though.

[Innoc]

This militia vs individual right disparity has been argued to death...here, elsewhere on the net and IRL.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Right. Texas has the right to do that. I'm talking about the United States Constitution though.

Here ya go - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

If you are over the age of 18, free, and able bodied - then you are in the militia as defined in 1792. To ensure the militia stays armed, you have the right to keep and bear arms.

The Militia and the standing army are separate. One is citizens, one is enlisted. One goes home after the fighting, the other goes back to the military base.

Any more questions? Exercise your rights, or lose them.

[SME]

US vs Miller:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=307&page=174

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

[uBeR]

Lol, yeah, lets follow the Militia Act of 1792 (there were two of them), which would mean that any African American or Latino or Asian living in the United States cannot bear arms. What a brilliant idea. Lets also follow the Military Act of 1792, which would mean every white man between 18 and 45 would have to own a musket, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, etc. etc. Brilliant.

You're reading outdated laws, my friend.

RE: Texas Penal Code: The Texas penal code says nothing about the right to bear arms. "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" allows concealed weapons, not the penal code (which makes sense). Again though, Texas (and many other states) only allow you to own a gun if it registered for and concealed when carried. The State gives you that privilege.

Edit2: I was looking over Texas Government Code and was reading the chapter on its state militia. One portion read, "a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state." So it's clear that if you're just a bunch of guys with guns, you're not apart of the state militia, nor are you allowed to organize as a militia or to parade in public with firearms.

Also, "On muster of a military unit into the state military forces, the adjutant general shall issue the unit a certificate, in a form prescribed by the adjutant general, stating that the unit has been duly organized according to the laws and regulations of the state military forces and is entitled to the rights, powers, privileges, and immunities conferred by those laws and regulations. The certificate is evidence in a state court that the unit is duly incorporated." Has the adjutant general given every Texan between 18-45 a certificate stating their are duly organized under state law? Then you're not apart of any militia.

Most important to the state laws on the state militia are as follows:

(a) The Texas National Guard is
composed of:
(1) the state military forces organized as the Texas
National Guard;
(2) persons held to military duty under state law;
(3) persons who accept appointment or voluntarily
enlist in the Texas National Guard; and
(4) members of the reserve militia mustered into the
Texas National Guard.
(b) The Texas National Guard may not exceed 37,000 officers
and enlisted persons except in case of war, insurrection, invasion
or the prevention of invasion, the suppression of riot, or the
aiding of civil authorities to execute state law.

If you don't fit this criteria, you're not in a militia. End of story.