Politics Oregon assault weapons ban petitioners turn in signatures

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

So if this law passes will you:

  • Total voters
    15
CupWizier said:
You don't buy into the foundation unless it fits your view. You have already claimed you would break the law if assault rifles were banned in Oregon. Very unpatriotic of you.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be breaking the law as it can never be a legitimate and valid law under the Constitution of our land.

As the Constitution makes very clear, The Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right we are born with. It is not a privilege "granted" by the government. The Second Amendment merely re-affirms it and bans the government from ever weakening it in any way shape or form.
 
MARIS61 said:
He wouldn't be breaking the law as it can never be a legitimate and valid law under the Constitution of our land.

As the Constitution makes very clear, The Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right we are born with. It is not a privilege "granted" by the government. The Second Amendment merely re-affirms it and bans the government from ever weakening it in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Wrong buffalo wing breath. Assault rifles have been banned in the past.

Educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 
Natebishop3 said:
Gun control has been passed and then overturned by the Supreme Court in the past. Just because the law passes doesn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court didn't overturn the law Cup linked to.
 
MARIS61 said:
Wow King, you sound just like John Lennon. How’s he doing?
Click to expand...

and how would John Lennon owning a gun prevent his death? Do you go to your door with a gun in your hand every time you answer the door? Pretty ignorant statement once again. :smack:
 
Natebishop3 said:
I didn't say it was. I was saying that just because gun control laws have been passed doesn't make them constitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91934910
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why your post had no basis in this thread. The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time against some laws that have nothing to do with guns, but the fact remains, gun bans have been passed and put in place so yes, it can be done.
 
MARIS61 said:
That’s an obvious personal insult.

So much for your hypocritical lecture to Cippy.

I don’t hate anyone, and don’t recall ever feeling hate for anyone at any time in my life.

I hate dishonesty, hypocrisy, and cruelty, wherever they exist.

You’re a dog so bite me.
Click to expand...

While he's correct it is an insult to point it out.
 
CupWizier said:
and how would John Lennon owning a gun prevent his death? Do you go to your door with a gun in your hand every time you answer the door? Pretty ignorant statement once again. :smack:
Click to expand...
SlyPokerDog said:
The Supreme Court didn't overturn the law Cup linked to.
Click to expand...

I think Nate was referring to the generalized case.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Gun control has been passed and then overturned by the Supreme Court in the past. Just because the law passes doesn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...

You should clarify this to apply only to those laws the Supreme Court has not reviewed or rejected for review.
 
MARIS61 said:
He wouldn't be breaking the law as it can never be a legitimate and valid law under the Constitution of our land.

As the Constitution makes very clear, The Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right we are born with. It is not a privilege "granted" by the government. The Second Amendment merely re-affirms it and bans the government from ever weakening it in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, where does the Constitution guarantee any of us the right to keep and bear an atomic bomb? This means you can set limits. The only argument is what are the maximum limits.
 
CupWizier said:
Which is exactly why your post had no basis in this thread. The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time against some laws that have nothing to do with guns, but the fact remains, gun bans have been passed and put in place so yes, it can be done.
Click to expand...

A lot of things "can be done" because of our corrupt system of government.

Does that make it right?

Do you think that companies should be able to patent life?

Do you think that the FCC and congress should have allowed ISPs to sell our personal information?

Do you think that the NSA should be able to violate our privacy in the name of security?

Do you think that Trump should be able to get away with half the shit that he has been getting away with?

Maris said that the laws are not valid because they are not constitutional, so your point that they are constitutional because they have been passed previously makes no sense, which is why I pointed out that SCOTUS has struck down firearm laws in the past. They seem to agree that most gun laws are not constitutional. Their mere presence does not automatically make them constitutional, just as many other horrible laws that congress has passed should not be constitutional.
 
CupWizier said:
Why yes they do, thus the reason they are called fools and why SlyPokerDog is a prime example.
Click to expand...

Are you really incapable of making an argument without using a personal insult? To me, that signifies an inability to formulate a counter argument, and thus you must turn to ad hominem attacks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Natebishop3 said:
Are you really incapable of making an argument without using a personal insult? To me, that signifies an inability to formulate a counter argument, and thus you must turn to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

You can always put me on ignore or not respond to my posts. It won't hurt my feelings. I have yet to see you post much of anything other than blaming a generation for everything. I invite you to fuck off.
 
CupWizier said:
You can always put me on ignore or not respond to my posts. It won't hurt my feelings. I have yet to see you post much of anything other than blaming a generation for everything.
Click to expand...

I don't put people on ignore. It's much more fun to slap around their arguments.

I find that the people who run away from arguments, or tell others to run away, are afraid of having an actual debate.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I don't put people on ignore. It's much more fun to slap around their arguments.

I find that the people who run away from arguments, or tell others to run away, are afraid of having an actual debate.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that practice. I have yet to see you post anything of substance in this thread.
 
Natebishop3 said:
And I have seen you throw around a lot of insults. To each their own I guess.
Click to expand...
and I have seen you toss out accusations and generalizations of groups of people acting like your shit doesn't stink. News flash. It does.
 
CupWizier said:
I am done with this discussion
Click to expand...

And there you go.

Run away.

You call people foolish. You tell me that my shit stinks. You're totally okay with lobbing insults and personal attacks, but you are incapable of formulating an actual argument. I find that sad.
 
Lanny said:
I'm sorry, where does the Constitution guarantee any of us the right to keep and bear an atomic bomb? This means you can set limits. The only argument is what are the maximum limits.
Click to expand...

And the responses to the proposed amendment show exactly why there is not reason to have a discussion with liberal/progressive. They lack the honesty or the respect for the system.
 
MarAzul said:
Not to worry @Natebishop3, SlyPokerDog is a prime example of an ignorant ass in action. Years of practice perfecting his hate.
Click to expand...

More personal attacks marzy. Apparently you are the one filled with hate. :clap:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top