Politics Oregon assault weapons ban petitioners turn in signatures

How many of those were rifles? How many of those were "assault rifles?"

 

Actually, the treat of having some fire power on board is the reason for not having piracy preying on boats in US waters. Where as in much of the disarmed world,
thugs at sea prey on the disarmed in their waters. Not the US or Canada for that matter. Mexico to our south is another story all together, every since they began not allowing weapons on board.

 

Ha! Come to thing of it, much of the State has already passed local laws directing the Sheriffs to ignore gun laws passed in Salem that do not comply with the Constitution. So this law may be meaningless but for Portland.

 

This is just the universal rule.

An unarmed populace is easy pickens.

 

Lol, so we need to arm yurself from the government? That is ridiculous. We are well past the 1700's

 

Yes. Completely ridiculous that an armed public is a deterrent from tyranny.

What I find interesting is that you're so willing to give your blind faith to a government that has shown repeated disregard for our rights, our privacy, and the constitution in the past (almost) 20 years. Probably longer, but the creation of the patriot act among many other blatant trespasses against our personal freedom has really stepped it up since 9/11.

I don't even own an AR-15 at this point, but our founding fathers understood the necessity of an armed public to prevent outright tyrannical control from a government. That's why they put the second amendment into the constitution in the first place.

 

I had a gun pulled on me from a road rage incident- I drove away so fast I don’t know if it was just a threat or had intent.

 

Now you are making shit up.

 

Interesting..... which part? Do you want me to start linking you articles about what the NSA has been up to since 9/11?

Or maybe just the complete disregard for public opinion about something like Net Neutrality?

Or maybe you saw how members of the Turkish security force assaulted US citizens not even a year ago on US soil and our government did nothing to protect us?

 

We have a winner! That we are even having a discussion regarding the intents of our 2nd Amendment is indicative of the abject failure in historical education brought to us by the NEA and other leftist educators.

 

It just amazes me how so many liberals can talk about how the government has failed us on education or healthcare, and they see the corruption going on with other parts of the government, and they talk about police violence and brutality, and they complain about defense spending........ but they see no reason to arm ourselves in case the government ever tries to go full 1984.

 

They don't like Putin and his puppet Trump but wanna give up the guns....hmmm, interesting.

I don't want to own any guns but I have a friend who is his own militia. Shit hits the fan and we're working together. He would need man power to protect his big Mexican family and I need guns and bullets to protect my wife.

Win win.

 

I had to give this some thought. When I had completed my four active, I was obviously over 21, so it would have never occurred to me. I chose at that time not to have any guns, it was a conscious decision at the time.
Now that I have matured and do own some stuff, also my choice, the right to own them is highly valued and appreciated.

You see, we both made choices based upon our individual experiences. Oddly enough, we did the same at the time. Where you and I abstained, the next ten guys might choose to do differently. To me, they earned that right.

As far as bolt action, or pump shot guns, you have to be kidding, I pity the idiot that would face a competent marksman with a Garand or a properly outfitted Mossberg

so while you ignore those now, those to whom you listen to would gladly include the both

 

Pretty simple. Look at the states and cities that have highly restrictive gun laws, ie Chicago or Maryland or Detroit. Not working out so well, is it.

 

my post had nothing to do with nationalism....yours said you don't respect a lot of people ...swoosh..right over the noggin..not all forum members here are Yanks

 

Isn't the goal supposed to be saving lives, especially the lives of our children?

 

In my opinion, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to control the slaves. In a biography of Alexander Hamilton that I read, they discussed how every man was required to own a firearm and drill with the local militia for the sole purpose of preventing any uprising by the slaves who outnumbered the whites in some areas. Hence the remark in the Amendment about a well regulated militia.

Slavery was legal when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights bacame the law of the land.

Without the stain that was slavery, I see no need for the Second Amendment since the only well regulated militia would be the National Guard.

There could still be reasonable provision for those with a legitimate need for firearm protection, hunting and target shooting, even protecting your home.

 

Wow, Lanny. that is contrived. You really should write fiction as professional.

The fact is that we had no professional army (full time). Then as it is now, every man 18 to 45 is subject to being called up to serve in the militia. The intent is to protect the sovereignty of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

Why?

They had just gotten out of a war with a tyrannical empire that tried to disarm them. They put a number of safeguards into the constitution to protect the people from that kind of government taking over again. Example - they prevented the government from establishing a state religion like the Church of England.

They specifically say that the 2nd amendment is about maintaining a free state. It didn't have anything to do with slavery.

"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."

Very simple. Nothing to do with hunting or protecting your home from an intruder. Entirely about maintaining a free country.