Brilliant.M.O.A.B wrote:
Haud on, one moment.
*Dons Bearsuit*
Alright. It'd make more sense to ban any weapon over a particular length, and not just barrel length, total length, unless you can prove you have a genuine need for something like a hunting rifle, and by that I mean one purpose built for hunting not something designed to blow away squaddies in quick succession. A weapon for personal defence should be a pistol or revolver at most, not a combat rifle.
1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Brilliant.M.O.A.B wrote:
Haud on, one moment.
*Dons Bearsuit*
Alright. It'd make more sense to ban any weapon over a particular length, and not just barrel length, total length, unless you can prove you have a genuine need for something like a hunting rifle, and by that I mean one purpose built for hunting not something designed to blow away squaddies in quick succession. A weapon for personal defence should be a pistol or revolver at most, not a combat rifle.
That's exactly which video I was going to show him. ThanksCybargs wrote:
Which is the army. But don't miss out the part where it states "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed"Spearhead wrote:
It also says mentions a well regulated militia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
edit: it's kinda hard to be the moral authority and being "above your enemy" when you suspend liberties, kinda like what churchill did to fascists in WW2. He's doing the exact same thing they would do if they were in power.
You're ok dude, other people have that more than covered!Jaekus wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the constitution itself as that's not my place (I lack significant knowledge about it).
*sigh* I knowcoke wrote:
You're ok dude, other people have that more than covered!Jaekus wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the constitution itself as that's not my place (I lack significant knowledge about it).
Neither of them are American too. What are the odds of that?!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Well we have the two foremost scholars of the constitution right in this thread! Shifty and cybargs, complete with references to penn and teller!
Of all the people who work at a school who you would want to arm why the janitors? They are janitors for a reason.A rural Ohio school district will arm its janitors with handguns to protect students in the wake of last month's shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.
The school board has voted unanimously to have the four custodians at the district's nursery and main school begin carrying handguns, the Toledo Blade reports.
In a message to parents on the district's website, Superintendent Jamison Grime said the school board decided to arm staff in order to "substantially enhance and strengthen our security efforts."
The janitors - all men - will buy their own guns. Teachers and others with direct supervision of students will not be armed.
School board president Larry Martin said the district began looking into arming employees six months ago.
'Cus they are child molesters?Macbeth wrote:
Of all the people who work at a school who you would want to arm why the janitors? They are janitors for a reason.A rural Ohio school district will arm its janitors with handguns to protect students in the wake of last month's shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.
The school board has voted unanimously to have the four custodians at the district's nursery and main school begin carrying handguns, the Toledo Blade reports.
In a message to parents on the district's website, Superintendent Jamison Grime said the school board decided to arm staff in order to "substantially enhance and strengthen our security efforts."
The janitors - all men - will buy their own guns. Teachers and others with direct supervision of students will not be armed.
School board president Larry Martin said the district began looking into arming employees six months ago.
I can imagine a number of reasons they would be selected.Macbeth wrote:
Of all the people who work at a school who you would want to arm why the janitors? They are janitors for a reason.A rural Ohio school district will arm its janitors with handguns to protect students in the wake of last month's shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.
The school board has voted unanimously to have the four custodians at the district's nursery and main school begin carrying handguns, the Toledo Blade reports.
In a message to parents on the district's website, Superintendent Jamison Grime said the school board decided to arm staff in order to "substantially enhance and strengthen our security efforts."
The janitors - all men - will buy their own guns. Teachers and others with direct supervision of students will not be armed.
School board president Larry Martin said the district began looking into arming employees six months ago.
If I were to move to the US, non-citizens can own firearms as long as they're a legal resident of a state for x period of time. In texas it's about 90 days. Just because someone is a non-citizen does not mean they are not afforded rights that are available to other americans. You don't see non-citizens not having the right to speech, due process, privacy correct?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Shifty are you a citizen? Permenant resident? Now you have me questioning whether or not you're even allowed to own a firearm. Cybargs, what's the legality of a non-citizen possessing a firearm?
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-11 19:37:41)
The bible being changed over time to suit the church was one of the factors in my leaving mine.Jaekus wrote:
People go on about the constitution like it is the bible.
Sometimes things that applied 200+ years ago don't apply today. It can/should be changed when required (just like the bible has been changed over time to suit the church). Of course great care and scrutiny needs to be exercised, but this goes without saying that any changes would require complete bipartisan support.
i see that you will need some tissue to clean up the chin below the whitest teeth i've ever come across.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I have a U.S. passport and a mini-14, baby that's all I need.
read my previous posts on the matter. it's not unconstitutional because it restricts a certain capability, not the weapon itself. that's why semi-auto models of rifles are legal while their post 1986 full auto counter parts are not.Spearhead wrote:
Is the 1934 law banning full auto weapons unconstitutional?