It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate: Second Amendment 'sanctuary counties' sought

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Automatic weapons are highly regulated. To say the least.

Or did you leave out the "semi."




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Income tax sanctuary cities.

D


Seconded. Can we move to vote now or do we need to file paperwork?



Just get a pubic official to state it.

Seems to work in California, etc.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Exactly. That was my point. He was trying to argue that cartels were committing crimes with fully auto weapons and I was saying that most gun crimes are committed with handguns of the semi-auto variety, and barely any are committed with fully auto weapons because they are so heavily regulated.
edit on 13-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
One more thing



Where do these requests to become equally armed as the government start to become too silly?


The founders didn't think it silly.

That is why they wrote the second.

For the PEOPLE to be on an EQUAL footing with the FEDERAL STATE.
edit on 13-2-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So those items aren't crossing the line then? So at this point I've narrowed it down between APC/tank and ICBM. Can we get a bit less vague then? Where's my nuclear submarine? Or fighter jet?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
One more thing



Where do these requests to become equally armed as the government start to become too silly?


The founders didn't think it silly.

That is why they wrote the second.

For the PEOPLE to be on an EQUAL footing with the FEDERAL STATE.

As long as they don't own ICBM's though. You made that clear earlier.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

So those items aren't crossing the line then? So at this point I've narrowed it down between APC/tank and ICBM. Can we get a bit less vague then? Where's my nuclear submarine? Or fighter jet?


They cross state lines ALL the time.

Go with an APC get more use out of it than a one shot multi billion dollar WMD that one really cant use anywhere.

And by the by.

The STATE says went arne't allowed nukes to begin with so come up with something better.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo, there are just going to be people who don't want you to have rights or freedoms.

Just be thankful they're not in charge.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

IF each citizen had an ICBM aimed at D.C. I guarantee we could lower taxes.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm asking you because I don't know where the line is. You keep making it seem like it is obvious to you. So I'm trying to get a baseline from where we should argue from. You haven't answered my request about a nuclear submarine or a fighter jet though. Can I have a spy satellite? What about a Predator drone?
edit on 13-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

I'm asking you because I don't know where the line is. You keep making it seem like it is obvious to you. So I'm trying to get a baseline from where we should argue from. You haven't answering my request about a nuclear submarine or a fighter jet though. Can I have a spy satellite? What about a Predator drone?


Already linked the tank,helicopter,and artillery.

So heres two more that should be SELF EVIDENT.

www.controller.com...


Not a sub but one gets the idea.

www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Oh dear.

I actually found one.

www.maritimesales.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So I'm getting a sense that it is everything but nuclear. I'm assuming biological and chemical are off the table too? Oh and explosives. The FBI seems to frown on people owning large amounts of explosives.
edit on 13-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I feel like this "only follow the laws you want" thing could catch on. Just need to know which ones the notion applies to I guess.

We already know immigration law is optional, but gun control laws are not optional, and taxes is up in the air.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So I getting the sense that someone doesn't like sanctuary cities for GUNZ.

Because of NUKES.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Oh yeah! I forgot that was the thread topic while I was exploring the thinking of neo. So what is a sanctuary country supposed to do exactly?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: KawRider9

You must be a minion of the state since you care what your local laws regarding gun ownership are.

#minionsisagoodmovie


Yeah, I'm a "moran" like that!

I follow laws, others don't... Please blame and write legislation that cripples me and not a criminal. That makes me feel safer!!!

I heart ignorant laws...

#ThankYou
#BlueLivesMatter



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Even if it's effectively just a symbolic move, I hope it goes through and wouldn't be surprised if it does.

As largely liberal as we are here, we also have a lot of rural folk who love their guns. And us liberals have those gun people in our lives as loved ones and many of those loved gun-nuts are liberal themselves.

You'd be surprised by how well we do "moderate" here sometimes. Watch and see, I guess.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

You say "here" so I assume you're a local. Or at least semi-local.

Is there much talk about pressuring the legislature to remove the initial law at all? The primary one that's prompting this movement, I mean, about requiring background checks for private sales.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Abysha

You say "here" so I assume you're a local. Or at least semi-local.

Is there much talk about pressuring the legislature to remove the initial law at all? The primary one that's prompting this movement, I mean, about requiring background checks for private sales.



I live in Portland so I haven't heard a word about it, supportive of either side (not many hunters here, etc). But Oregon, in general, has a pretty positive outlook towards 2nd amendment.

Not to mention, look at our track record for defying macrocosm laws in favor of local ones. We had marriage equality before Obama made it national. We currently have legal marijuana. So bucking the system on a county level seems exactly like something that would happen in Oregon.

You'll never find a larger crowd of hillbillies, hipsters, and queer folk who can actually cohabit the same space and share some beers/cocktails. In fact, you'd be more likely to see fist fights over microbrew superiority arguments than you would over gun rights. We're segmented and segregated by a mountain range but the crossover is undeniable.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join