Infringement of the 2nd amendment nullified by Ballot measure

[MarAzul]

All I'm asking for is to you to keep your guns to yourself.

Nope, not your call. I always have had more arms than I need for myself, for the purpose of arming help when I judge it to be a good idea. Whether I need the help or they do, I will judge the validity. I believe that is prudent and being prepared. Also, completely within the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Nope, not your call. I always have had more arms than I need for myself, for the purpose of arming help when I judge it to be a good idea. Whether I need the help or they do, I will judge the validity. I believe that is prudent and being prepared. Also, completely within the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

Wanting the right to arm anyone you personally see fit is not prudent. You wanting to play gun judge and give your guns to whomever you want is not prudent. I have no problem with you wanting to help arm your neighbors legally. But for you to feel that anyone should have the right to arm anyone they want is... is... not prudent.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

View attachment 6457

 

[MARIS61]

Sadly, that's clearly the wrong answer for a cop to give. It's not a cop's job to interpret the constitution. That's way above his pay grade.

barfo

It's not your job to change what he said.

He said he took an oath to uphold The Constitution. That is true.

And I would hope that everyone who takes an oath, any oath, realizes what that means and follows through on it.

Or all is lost.

 

[MARIS61]

My point was that the rest of the state of Oregon bitches about how the tri-counties "ru(i)ns" everything in the state.

Well, they have the population and the $$. So if they want to start paying for their own shit, go ahead and try to run the rest of the state without the 3 biggest counties $$. Good luck with that.

The tri-counties contribute zilch to rural counties.

 

[MARIS61]

What are these needs exactly? Why do you and your neighbors need to sell guns without any sort of background check? That law does nothing to limit gun ownership. It only makes it harder for the people who shouldn't own a gun to buy one.

Any time a record is made of a gun sale, theft, or transfer, it's previous and current owners become part of the Federal "gun owner list". For instance, they know the first gun I bought for myself in the 80's. model, caliber, s/n...

The Second Amendment was written to prevent such a list from ever being possible.

 

[MarAzul]

Wanting the right to arm anyone you personally see fit is not prudent. You wanting to play gun judge and give your guns to whomever you want is not prudent. I have no problem with you wanting to help arm your neighbors legally. But for you to feel that anyone should have the right to arm anyone they want is... is... not prudent.

Sly you are surprisingly obtuse. I have the right to bare arms, So does my neighbor. We have the right to associate together for mutual protection or what ever. If he has no arms, I have every right to lend him one when I find it prudent. You can not say it is not an infringement on his rights to prohibit me from lending him arms, or my right to associate with him or her.
Many men brought their arms to the militia, but most were armed by their associates in the militia. John Hancock armed a militia. Now what the fuck is an immigrates son doing, saying he had no right to do so?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I have the right to bare arms,

Yes you do. I agree.

So does my neighbor.

Again I agree.

We have the right to associate together for mutual protection or what ever.

Sure, why not. I agree with that also.

If he has no arms, I have every right to lend him one when I find it prudent.

No. You can sell him a gun for $1. You can take him to a gun shop. You can give him money. You have no right to lend or give anyone a gun. Lending him a gun on the gun range or hunting is fine but you can't give people guns to take home. The gun is no longer in your control.

Many men brought their arms to the militia, but most were armed by their associates in the militia. John Hancock armed a militia.

Yes, you can form a militia. You have that right. But you do not have the right to be gun mother for a militia and start handing out guns. You can give everyone who joins your militia money to buy guns. You can sell everyone in your militia your guns.

Labeling something a militia so people can give out guns is not something you can do. "Hey, we're not the Crips, we're the Crips Militia, everyone line up so I can give you a gun!" "Today we will be known as the Black Lives Matter Militia! Guns for everyone!"

 

[Denny Crane]

I suggested severe penalties for the use of guns in crimes. If a person uses a gun in a crime, it's an automatic 20 year sentence (or something like that). If someone uses your gun, you are responsible.

Let MarAzul loan out his guns as he sees fit.

He isn't arming criminals.

 

[julius]

silly Sly, black people can't form militias

 

[SlyPokerDog]

He isn't arming criminals.

He doesn't know that. If he were to sell his guns for $1 and do a background check he would know that.

 

[Denny Crane]

He doesn't know that. If he were to sell his guns for $1 and do a background check he would know that.

He knows better than some computer.

 

[Natebishop3]

He knows better than some computer.

That's an interesting sentiment...

You know what the neighbors always say when they haul off a guy for being a serial killer? "He seemed like such a nice guy."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's an interesting sentiment...

You know what the neighbors always say when they haul off a guy for being a serial killer? "He seemed like such a nice guy."

Are you saying I'm not a nice guy?

 

[Natebishop3]

Are you saying I'm not a nice guy?

I'm saying you kinda have that serial killer vibe. Obviously.

 

[MarAzul]

But you do not have the right to be gun mother for a militia and start handing out guns

That sound emotional, rather than logical. That is usually where Democrats make a mistake. You can't point to a law that supports your assertion that will be enforced in my county or many other counties in Oregon. Only the law the Democrats recently passed and it would have made criminal of John Hancock if enforced. Sorry Sly, but your view is shallow and fails to allow for people coming together, associating for mutual protection in face of a threat. Ridiculous it is actually, the need to go to a place where a background check can be done, thumb prints taken and all, that is 50 miles away is something a Portlander can't comprehend, but it sure as hell is an infringement of your rights.

 

[MarAzul]

Labeling something a militia so people can give out guns is not something you can do. "Hey, we're not the Crips, we're the Crips Militia, everyone line up so I can give you a gun!" "Today we will be known as the Black Lives Matter Militia! Guns for everyone!"

Actually it is more than likely those groups will continue their practices, you are just objecting to me doing what I have done for many years quite legally.

 

[donkiez]

He knows better than some computer.

Mar aside, do you trust everyones judgement on this?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[magnifier661]

I actually support @Denny Crane idea of punishing the gun owner if his gun is used in a crime. I think if you make the owner responsible for their weapon, they would be less likely to loan it out. It's one thing to let people shoot your gun at a range with them. It's entirely another to say "oh here you go, now don't you do anything stupid!"

 

[MarAzul]

Weired! People blame the driver of the car in Oklahoma for running down people at a parade, but when a gun is involved they want to blame the Gun.
Actually a gun is a tool and it is owned by the person holding it. It only does bidding of the person holding it, same as the car, it only goes where you drive it.
I don't know why you attach any more significance to a gun than any other tool used in a dastardly act.

 

[blue32]

I actually support @Denny Crane idea of punishing the gun owner if his gun is used in a crime. I think if you make the owner responsible for their weapon, they would be less likely to loan it out. It's one thing to let people shoot your gun at a range with them. It's entirely another to say "oh here you go, now don't you do anything stupid!"

Make sure to report stolen guns ASAP, that is, if you notice it gone..

 

[Denny Crane]

Mar aside, do you trust everyones judgement on this?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Sure. The whole background check thing isn't effective enough, and the next step is to have people fink on one another about "mental stability" or whatever.

I don't think MarAzul is going to loan his guns to just anyone. And the gun violence penalties I suggested would give him good pause to consider the consequences of lending out his guns.

 

[Denny Crane]

Make sure to report stolen guns ASAP, that is, if you notice it gone..

I say you're still responsible for your stolen gun being used in a crime.

 

[magnifier661]

Make sure to report stolen guns ASAP, that is, if you notice it gone..

That's a good thing really. Gun owners would be on top of their guns.

I wouldn't go as far as 20 years in prison though! Lol

 

[magnifier661]

I say you're still responsible for your stolen gun being used in a crime.

I don't agree with that at all. If someone steals your car and plows 10 people to death, you aren't responsible. If someone robs your home and uses your gun to go on a killing spree, you should be responsible either.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's a good thing really. Gun owners would be on top of their guns.

I wouldn't go as far as 20 years in prison though! Lol

20 years makes you think twice about owning guns?

 

[Natebishop3]

Weired! People blame the driver of the car in Oklahoma for running down people at a parade, but when a gun is involved they want to blame the Gun.
Actually a gun is a tool and it is owned by the person holding it. It only does bidding of the person holding it, same as the car, it only goes where you drive it.
I don't know why you attach any more significance to a gun than any other tool used in a dastardly act.

Except we have laws that do not allow felons or people convicted of domestic violence to own guns. So if you were to provide a gun, no questions asked, to a guy convicted of domestic violence and he were to go kill his ex-wife, should you not be held accountable for providing a firearm to someone who cannot legally purchase one himself? If he were to steal it from you, that's one thing, but if you gladly hand over your weapon without doing any due diligence, shouldn't you be held accountable?

I agree that the current system is not realistic for doing background checks. I think the Feds should open up the NICS so that we can do our own background checks online.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't agree with that at all. If someone steals your car and plows 10 people to death, you aren't responsible. If someone robs your home and uses your gun to go on a killing spree, you should be responsible either.

Cars are licensed, guns aren't. Guns are much easier to conceal as well.

The onus here is on the gun owner to be responsible gun owners. With the privilege of owning a gun, you have to assure it is used in a legit manner and it is protected appropriately from theft (so the bad guys don't get them). Keep them in a safe or whatever.

 

[Sedatedfork]

So, what's going to happen when the State Patrol gets involved and enforces the law? Or what is to stop someone from suing a seller who sold a gun violating state law that harmed another?

 

[Denny Crane]

So, what's going to happen when the State Patrol gets involved and enforces the law? Or what is to stop someone from suing a retailer who sold a gun violating state law that harmed another?

Retailers aren't gun owners they're gun purveyors. They're already under fairly strict licensing and other regulation.

I'm not sure what the State Patrol has to do with anything.

If anyone is arrested and is carrying or using a gun at a crime scene, throw the book at him. If the gun is someone else's, that other person is responsible, too.