Oregon Senators and gun RESTRICTIONS
#21
Why was well regulate militia included, it serves no purpose as you define it.
I wish we protected the fourth amendment with such vigor.
Reply
#22
(10-10-2015, 06:24 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: You assume much.

Well Willie, the supreme court a few years ago confirmed what Hugo is saying. We can disagree with what we think the intent was, but we CAN'T disagree with the law of the land and SCOTUS has ruled. 

And I have no trouble with an armed society. Even though I don't have a gun, I support Hugo's right (and all others) to have as many guns as they want. For hunting, defense, target shooting, or whatever. 

But that's not the argument here (IMHO). The problem is a few nut jobs with guns who shoot groups of innocent people: Using guns! I'm hoping that our political and social leaders can suggest SOMTHING that might be an acceptable restriction of sorts to help with what is a real problem. Maybe there is no solution. I'd hate to give up on it without at least some discussion of a compromise that we could all live with. 

Hugo is right. But maybe, just maybe, not considering all that might be done to help solve the grief and suffering the folks in Roseburg are dealing with. Or maybe we just live with it. I don't know. I just don't want to give up on it too soon. 

At least we are talking about it. That's something. 
Reply
#23
(10-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Why was well regulate militia included, it serves no purpose as you define it.
I wish we protected the fourth amendment with such vigor.

Simply put, Because the government MUST have an armed force (the militia), and an armed government CAN overtake the citizenry, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms must be upheld to fight a tyrannical government. That is how I, and the Supreme court, read the founders words. Even more simply put, the founders intended for there to be a fully armed citizenry, for their personal and collective freedom.
Reply
#24
(10-10-2015, 06:46 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Why was well regulate militia included, it serves no purpose as you define it.
I wish we protected the fourth amendment with such vigor.

Simply put, Because the government MUST have an armed force (the militia), and an armed government CAN overtake the citizenry, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms must be upheld to fight a tyrannical government. That is how I, and the Supreme court, read the founders words. Even more simply put, the founders intended for there to be a fully armed citizenry, for their personal and collective freedom.

You bet. Jefferson said it's "the right" of a people to rise up against a tyrannical  government. (And our citizens have a least as many guns at the military  Smiling

But this has little to do with the sad fact that too many of our fellow citizens fear nut jobs running around with these guns they have the right to carry and use. 

And fix for that, Hugo, or do we just "put up with it". 
Reply
#25
(10-10-2015, 08:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 06:46 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Why was well regulate militia included, it serves no purpose as you define it.
I wish we protected the fourth amendment with such vigor.

Simply put, Because the government MUST have an armed force (the militia), and an armed government CAN overtake the citizenry, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms must be upheld to fight a tyrannical government. That is how I, and the Supreme court, read the founders words. Even more simply put, the founders intended for there to be a fully armed citizenry, for their personal and collective freedom.

You bet. Jefferson said it's "the right" of a people to rise up against a tyrannical  government. (And our citizens have a least as many guns at the military  Smiling

But this has little to do with the sad fact that too many of our fellow citizens fear nut jobs running around with these guns they have the right to carry and use. 

And fix for that, Hugo, or do we just "put up with it". 

I already answered you, but I see you did not get it.  "Gun Free Zones" are killing fields.  Teach and train our children (as I have done, and a LOT of Americans have done, in rural America) the proper handling and respect for firearms.  Carry and stay alert and prepared when you can.  That is part one.

Part two? Teach them proper handling and respect for LIFE.

So, You gonna "put up with it"? Or offer an alternative to my suggestion?  This is the discourse and conversation you asked for.  Your turn.
Reply
#26
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...e-robbery/


Quote:One of the uniformed officers who responded to the 911 calls said, “It says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
Reply
#27
Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 
Reply
#28
(10-10-2015, 08:38 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 08:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 06:46 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Why was well regulate militia included, it serves no purpose as you define it.
I wish we protected the fourth amendment with such vigor.

Simply put, Because the government MUST have an armed force (the militia), and an armed government CAN overtake the citizenry, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms must be upheld to fight a tyrannical government. That is how I, and the Supreme court, read the founders words. Even more simply put, the founders intended for there to be a fully armed citizenry, for their personal and collective freedom.

You bet. Jefferson said it's "the right" of a people to rise up against a tyrannical  government. (And our citizens have a least as many guns at the military  Smiling

But this has little to do with the sad fact that too many of our fellow citizens fear nut jobs running around with these guns they have the right to carry and use. 

And fix for that, Hugo, or do we just "put up with it". 

I already answered you, but I see you did not get it.  "Gun Free Zones" are killing fields.  Teach and train our children (as I have done, and a LOT of Americans have done, in rural America) the proper handling and respect for firearms.  Carry and stay alert and prepared when you can.  That is part one.

Part two? Teach them proper handling and respect for LIFE.

So, You gonna "put up with it"? Or offer an alternative to my suggestion?  This is the discourse and conversation you asked for.  Your turn.
I'll pass, without negative comment. 
Reply
#29
If the children that got away from the liberal infanticide are so precious to them then why do they think guarding them with signs that say that the children have no defense is protecting them? Unless someone can pull the sign down and beat an intruder to death with it the sign is as useless as the liberal senators that call for new laws that already exist and the people that support and vote for them.
Reply
#30
(10-10-2015, 10:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: If the children that got away from the liberal infanticide are so precious to them then why do they think guarding them with signs that say that the children have no defense is protecting them? Unless someone can pull the sign down and beat an intruder to death with it the sign is as useless as the liberal senators that call for new laws that already exist and the people that support and vote for them.

"Go, and sin no more"  Smiling
Reply
#31
(10-10-2015, 09:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 

Here ya go Wonky.  This is how it's done.  Some honesty.

Cletus wants the 2nd amendment repealed, and all guns banned and confiscated. This is now a fact.  Below is my own speculation about his character.

I have no doubt he also wants to severely curb the 1st amendment as well, especially the freedom of religion part.  I would guess he wants a one party system (opposition should be rounded up and de-programmed/killed), reflecting his socialist goals of a government controlled populace. I am certain he believes that people in general simply can't take care of themselves without the government.  Unfortunately, he mistakenly thinks HE will be one of the exceptions.... Laughing

He is most of the way there to admitting to HATING the Constitution as it stands, and HATING the Country of the United States of America and it's founders. 

Refreshing to finally say it out loud, isn't it cletus?

You are a traitor and an enemy of the State.   Smiling
Reply
#32
(10-11-2015, 08:32 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 09:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 

Here ya go Wonky.  This is how it's done.  Some honesty.

Cletus wants the 2nd amendment repealed, and all guns banned and confiscated. This is now a fact.  Below is my own speculation about his character.

I have no doubt he also wants to severely curb the 1st amendment as well, especially the freedom of religion part.  I would guess he wants a one party system (opposition should be rounded up and de-programmed/killed), reflecting his socialist goals of a government controlled populace. I am certain he believes that people in general simply can't take care of themselves without the government.  Unfortunately, he mistakenly thinks HE will be one of the exceptions.... Laughing

He is most of the way there to admitting to HATING the Constitution as it stands, and HATING the Country of the United States of America and it's founders. 

Refreshing to finally say it out loud, isn't it cletus?

You are a traitor and an enemy of the State.   Smiling

Sure all liberals are enemies of the constitution; you have said it here before. And you are a far far rightwing nutcase. 
Reply
#33
(10-11-2015, 08:54 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-11-2015, 08:32 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 09:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 

Here ya go Wonky.  This is how it's done.  Some honesty.

Cletus wants the 2nd amendment repealed, and all guns banned and confiscated. This is now a fact.  Below is my own speculation about his character.

I have no doubt he also wants to severely curb the 1st amendment as well, especially the freedom of religion part.  I would guess he wants a one party system (opposition should be rounded up and de-programmed/killed), reflecting his socialist goals of a government controlled populace. I am certain he believes that people in general simply can't take care of themselves without the government.  Unfortunately, he mistakenly thinks HE will be one of the exceptions.... Laughing

He is most of the way there to admitting to HATING the Constitution as it stands, and HATING the Country of the United States of America and it's founders. 

Refreshing to finally say it out loud, isn't it cletus?

You are a traitor and an enemy of the State.   Smiling

Sure all liberals are enemies of the constitution; you have said it here before. And you are a far far rightwing nutcase. 
Perhaps not ALL.  YOU?  For Certain.  Interesting that you deny none of my characterization of you.
Reply
#34
(10-11-2015, 08:55 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-11-2015, 08:54 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-11-2015, 08:32 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 09:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 

Here ya go Wonky.  This is how it's done.  Some honesty.

Cletus wants the 2nd amendment repealed, and all guns banned and confiscated. This is now a fact.  Below is my own speculation about his character.

I have no doubt he also wants to severely curb the 1st amendment as well, especially the freedom of religion part.  I would guess he wants a one party system (opposition should be rounded up and de-programmed/killed), reflecting his socialist goals of a government controlled populace. I am certain he believes that people in general simply can't take care of themselves without the government.  Unfortunately, he mistakenly thinks HE will be one of the exceptions.... Laughing

He is most of the way there to admitting to HATING the Constitution as it stands, and HATING the Country of the United States of America and it's founders. 

Refreshing to finally say it out loud, isn't it cletus?

You are a traitor and an enemy of the State.   Smiling

Sure all liberals are enemies of the constitution; you have said it here before. And you are a far far rightwing nutcase. 
Perhaps not ALL.  YOU?  For Certain.  Interesting that you deny none of my characterization of you.
We all know republicans are responsible for the horrible life choices Cletus makes, and republicans are also responsible for the suffer age of his family for his horrible life choices. He's going to India Hugo, we might not hear from him for another 10-20 with parole after 15.
Reply
#35
(10-11-2015, 08:54 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-11-2015, 08:32 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 09:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Oh jeez lets just say it. I personally hope their worst fears come true. 

Here ya go Wonky.  This is how it's done.  Some honesty.

Cletus wants the 2nd amendment repealed, and all guns banned and confiscated. This is now a fact.  Below is my own speculation about his character.

I have no doubt he also wants to severely curb the 1st amendment as well, especially the freedom of religion part.  I would guess he wants a one party system (opposition should be rounded up and de-programmed/killed), reflecting his socialist goals of a government controlled populace. I am certain he believes that people in general simply can't take care of themselves without the government.  Unfortunately, he mistakenly thinks HE will be one of the exceptions.... Laughing

He is most of the way there to admitting to HATING the Constitution as it stands, and HATING the Country of the United States of America and it's founders. 

Refreshing to finally say it out loud, isn't it cletus?

You are a traitor and an enemy of the State.   Smiling

Sure all liberals are enemies of the constitution; you have said it here before. And you are a far far rightwing nutcase. 
Since when does believing in the founders and the Constitution make someone  a "far right wing nutcase"?  It is YOU, and people who think like you, who are the fringe nut cases, wanting to "fundamentally transform America", as if it were some evil place.

THAT is nuts.  You are nuts.  And you will not win.  I do understand your desire to disarm Americans though.  It is the ONLY means by which you can achieve the Socialist overthrow of the Constitution.  You and Hitler have similar ideals...... Good luck with that.
Reply
#36
Ever wonder why libturd dumbocrats never write articles about citizens that use their guns to stop attacks, robberies, rapes, etc? Maybe just one? Or how many innocent bystanders have been shot and /or killed by citizens using their guns to stop crime?
Reply
#37
https://www.facebook.com/colddeadhands/p...=3&theater
Reply
#38
(10-10-2015, 10:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: If the children that got away from the liberal infanticide are so precious to them then why do they think guarding them with signs that say that the children have no defense is protecting them? Unless someone can pull the sign down and beat an intruder to death with it the sign is as useless as the liberal senators that call for new laws that already exist and the people that support and vote for them.

You and Hugo keep saying over and over that the two senators are calling for laws that already exist.

Well you are wrong. it says...They’re calling for mandatory background checks on all gun sales. Federal law requires background checks for sales through licensed gun dealers, but private person-to-person transactions are excluded. They also want to improve the database of people prohibited from owning firearms. And they want to make it a federal crime to purchase a gun on behalf of someone who’s prohibited from owning them.



Yeah sure, Oregon now has a new law that requires background checks on private gun sales. But what makes you two so sure the senators were talking about Oregon only? THEY didn't say in Oregon.

MOST states don't require a background check on a private gun sale.
[url=http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html#][/url]

 
 
Reply
#39
(10-11-2015, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 10:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: If the children that got away from the liberal infanticide are so precious to them then why do they think guarding them with signs that say that the children have no defense is protecting them? Unless someone can pull the sign down and beat an intruder to death with it the sign is as useless as the liberal senators that call for new laws that already exist and the people that support and vote for them.

You and Hugo keep saying over and over that the two senators are calling for laws that already exist.

Well you are wrong. it says...They’re calling for mandatory background checks on all gun sales. Federal law requires background checks for sales through licensed gun dealers, but private person-to-person transactions are excluded. They also want to improve the database of people prohibited from owning firearms. And they want to make it a federal crime to purchase a gun on behalf of someone who’s prohibited from owning them.



Yeah sure, Oregon now has a new law that requires background checks on private gun sales. But what makes you two so sure the senators were talking about Oregon only? THEY didn't say in Oregon.

MOST states don't require a background check on a private gun sale.
[url=http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html#][/url]

 
 

Which part is not a good thing? 
Reply
#40
(10-11-2015, 03:29 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(10-11-2015, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-10-2015, 10:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: If the children that got away from the liberal infanticide are so precious to them then why do they think guarding them with signs that say that the children have no defense is protecting them? Unless someone can pull the sign down and beat an intruder to death with it the sign is as useless as the liberal senators that call for new laws that already exist and the people that support and vote for them.

You and Hugo keep saying over and over that the two senators are calling for laws that already exist.

Well you are wrong. it says...They’re calling for mandatory background checks on all gun sales. Federal law requires background checks for sales through licensed gun dealers, but private person-to-person transactions are excluded. They also want to improve the database of people prohibited from owning firearms. And they want to make it a federal crime to purchase a gun on behalf of someone who’s prohibited from owning them.



Yeah sure, Oregon now has a new law that requires background checks on private gun sales. But what makes you two so sure the senators were talking about Oregon only? THEY didn't say in Oregon.

MOST states don't require a background check on a private gun sale.
[url=http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html#][/url]

 
 

Which part is not a good thing? 

 Most of these school shootings, I think 8 out of 11 had nothing whatsoever to do with people buying guns from private parties. I don't really care if I have to get a background check to buy a gin from Joe schmoe.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)