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.

 

Has the 2nd ammendment been taken away in Oregon?

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: bknapple32


1.Or the wife who can simply make up a story and have her ex's guns illegally removed.

2.That parent should call 911

3.Should a bi polar person be owning a fire arm?


Youre arguing with a liberal on this. I know all the logical reasoning. There are too many what ifs that dont just come close.. but crosses a bill of rights red line. I will fight to the death to protect this one, even though I personally hardly ever agree with the right on this- if only to make sure they are there to protect me when another right is being infringed on that they dont agree with necessarily. Why? Because we're Americans. And if that doesnt happen, they win.


Or the wife could be gunned down while waiting for the police to come.
And 911 would take away the guns from that child. Which is my point exactly.
It's their constitutional right. (No they shouldn't.....but that's again proving my point.)

I'm arguing a common sense approach to this law...seeing it from a different perspective. Even you agree with my points, though you think you don't. There are some people that shouldn't have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO, because it's their Constitutional right...and then they go and kill a bunch of people and we scratch our heads and say "guns don't kill." But a gun in the hands of someone unstable or sociopathic does kill. And if a family feels that they are in danger from firearms owned by a family member, or if that family member threatens him or herself...what then?



Take away his guns and he'll just go get a knife, or a car. I know that's a typical "gun nut" talking point, but it's true, and it's supported by the numbers. 1/3rd of all murders in the US don't involve a firearm. If easy access to firearms was a significant factor, why would anyone kill without one? Shouldn't firearms be involved in well over 90% of the murders? Or do people just kill with whatever they can get their hands on? Analysis of country-by-country statistics shows no correlation between firearm availability and murder rate. Sure there are some countries with strong gun control that have low murder rates, but there's others that have high murder rates. People don't just decide hey I have a gun, that's a good reason to kill someone. They make the decision to kill for other reasons. What they use is incidental.
edit on 24 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32
What do you think happens when your a liberal state,they are so used to hand outs,they will exchange a tool of potential self defense for a 100 dollar bill,this is what happens when you let someone else take control of your life,defy government by having sanctuary ,when in fact by becomming liberal,you destroyed family buisness's only work is for big brother the corporation,now you whine the federal govt,won't give you free handouts,typical liberal act 1st,think later



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I understand the intent, and applaud the attempt to put something in place to help at risk people. (yup dirty conservative agreeing with the intent as it is presented)

But as usual politicians fail horribly at writing a bill that would specifically address the problem, and to input safeguards for little things like constitutional rights.

Even the 9th Circus should strike this down with ease, for people wondering about how it could be abused you can check out VA abuse of the 2nd with veterans similar setup, similar execution but in the case of the VA the only time the Veterans received help against them was when they lived in a county with a good sheriff.

At least this bill can be challenged, little harder to legally challenge a regulation in a federal entity.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

common sense has nothing to do with the constitution, it's all about the idea of freedom, equality and justice for all, you either accept the risks that come with that or you have it taken away over fear and you surrender any notion freedom, equality and justice.

freedom is like life where at any moment you could die any number of ways but do you think just hiding away in a closet to avoid all those risks would be a good way to live life safely?

freedom is filled with risk but if you truly desire and value it then it's up to you to not let emotions sway you into accepting laws that could take it all away.

accept the risk or run away and hide in the closet over irrational fears.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I was A Trp /7th in 1st Cav.
The issue is it'll be abused for disarmament,I f it was a straight up deal I would consider it.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Ahahaaha....



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
This is why I live as far East from the Left sorry I mean West Coast as possible....I hope everyone in the state losses their guns for allowing this kind of legislation to even hit the law makers desk.

They made their beds now they can sleep in them.





posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

While I agree that this appears to take things way too far, I must say that if they are going to attempt something like this, legally speaking, they have done a pretty good job making it difficult for the petitioner to secure said Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO).

The petitioner must bring in evidence and make a statement either under oath or in a signed affidavit (same thing, basically) as to the merits of the requested ERPO, and the respondent has the opportunity to rebut such request and evidence on their behalf.

This is from the language of :

(6)(a) The court shall issue an extreme risk protection order if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence, based on the petition and supporting documentation and after considering
a statement by the respondent, if provided, that the respondent presents a risk in
the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another
person. The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any
connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness.

Of course, just having a decent requirement for burden of proof in the language of the law doesn't mean that, in practice, it's really going to take all that much convincing, depending on the judge.

In any event, I think that this law will be challenged and struck down, especially because, as you note in the OP, there are so many qualifying events that can support the issuance of an ERPO that, really, have no bearing one's fitness to own a firearm.

I'll be interested to see where this goes, but I think its ultimate destination is straight down the toilet, and I hope so as well, as it is documented ad nauseam that suicides and assaults and murders will happen regardless of the tool if the intent exists in the heart of the individual.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Where are the NRA leadership wimps on fighting the disarmament of legal medical marijuana card holders all over the West? Silent is what they are. Hypocrites.

They have lost all credibility.


Bad news for medical marijuana marijuana users in Las Vegas, after the 9th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that you can NOT own a gun.

The court ruled unanimously that the Nevada ban preventing medical marijuana users from purchasing firearms is not a violation of the Constitution, as there is a compelling interest to prevent habitual users from owning guns as it “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”



The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals includes
District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington

NRA Wimps - from a lock and load liberal.

Source
edit on 25-8-2017 by DancedWithWolves because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

As an NRA member, I'd have to agree with you if they're not going to push back on that. I do think some regulation is reasonable, for example with alcohol many states have laws that prohibit you from carrying if you're going to a bar to drink (although in some states you can carry if you're going into a bar/restaurant just to have a meal as long as you don't consume alcohol). I'm not too familiar with medical marijuana, but as I recall depending on the form and dosage you can still get impaired judgment and coordination just as you do with recreational use. Now, I don't think that should be grounds to be barred from purchasing and owning a gun, just as the fact that you sometimes consume alcohol at home doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to own a gun. But it's still not a good idea to have people who are impaired by any substance, out in public, armed (and some states have laws against this already). As written though, the law you're referencing goes too far and I hope the NRA does eventually fight it. I'm in the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" camp when it comes to these anti-gunners, so I'm very skeptical about laws like that or the one this thread is about. We've seen in places like California what "it's just this one change" adds up to over years.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
i know people don't like fact checking anything here and prefer to live in some faux perpetual fear.
it's been covered here.
even if you are a threat to yourself or others you can appeal.

more guns for the mentally ill, just what the doctor ordered.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: growler

When you have to lie to make your point, you're losing. Nobody is advocating guns for the mentally ill. Come back when you want to discuss the issue like an adult. Also, I'd love to know which other constitutional rights you're ok with losing as long as you can appeal.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I don't know what every one is so upset about, seems like a simple solution to the legislation is, don't beat your wife & your guns wont be taken.

K~



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

Then you're being willfully ignorant. The problem has been explained over and over in this thread. Read and get educated on the subject.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No, beyond your hyperventilating about the issue, that's pretty much what this legislation is aimed at.



Abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a firearm, and domestic violence assaults involving a gun are 12 times more likely to end in death than assaults with other weapons or physical harm.

smartgunlaws.org...


Their are Federal statutes in existence & the states are just playing catch up.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.atf.gov...

This isn't a new issue.
www.pbs.org...

K~



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

No matter how you try to spin it, your statement that "don't beat your wife and your guns won't be taken" is flat out false. The links you posted prove that. The burden of proof to get a judge to sign off on it is low. It can and will be abused. That's why people are opposed to it. But you can't argue the actual subject matter of this thread so you have to pretend we're all just idiots who sleep with guns and that's why we're mad. So yes, you should stop making # up.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: bknapple32


1.Or the wife who can simply make up a story and have her ex's guns illegally removed.

2.That parent should call 911

3.Should a bi polar person be owning a fire arm?


Youre arguing with a liberal on this. I know all the logical reasoning. There are too many what ifs that dont just come close.. but crosses a bill of rights red line. I will fight to the death to protect this one, even though I personally hardly ever agree with the right on this- if only to make sure they are there to protect me when another right is being infringed on that they dont agree with necessarily. Why? Because we're Americans. And if that doesnt happen, they win.


Or the wife could be gunned down while waiting for the police to come.
And 911 would take away the guns from that child. Which is my point exactly.
It's their constitutional right. (No they shouldn't.....but that's again proving my point.)

I'm arguing a common sense approach to this law...seeing it from a different perspective. Even you agree with my points, though you think you don't. There are some people that shouldn't have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO, because it's their Constitutional right...and then they go and kill a bunch of people and we scratch our heads and say "guns don't kill." But a gun in the hands of someone unstable or sociopathic does kill. And if a family feels that they are in danger from firearms owned by a family member, or if that family member threatens him or herself...what then?



Take away his guns and he'll just go get a knife, or a car. I know that's a typical "gun nut" talking point, but it's true, and it's supported by the numbers. 1/3rd of all murders in the US don't involve a firearm. If easy access to firearms was a significant factor, why would anyone kill without one? Shouldn't firearms be involved in well over 90% of the murders? Or do people just kill with whatever they can get their hands on? Analysis of country-by-country statistics shows no correlation between firearm availability and murder rate. Sure there are some countries with strong gun control that have low murder rates, but there's others that have high murder rates. People don't just decide hey I have a gun, that's a good reason to kill someone. They make the decision to kill for other reasons. What they use is incidental.


Now we're talking...I like your approach.

Yes a murderer is probably going to murder. But just how many mass murders have been committed by a knife wielding suspect?

I agree, they make the decision based upon their end goal...most of the time. So if I'm a troubled person and I want to take out a lot of people with me...maybe my family, maybe my classmates, maybe my coworkers...I'll just use a knife, right? I mean they could use a car, a crossbow, poison, a homemade bomb, heck, they could just use a garrotte.

But Americans have this thing about guns...I think there's about 296 multiple murders by firearm (mass murders if you want to call it that) this year. source

Now, you could argue that knives are used more often than rifles to kill people...and even adding shotguns to the list knife murders are greater than the shotgun and rifle murders...but once you add handguns to the list, the numbers go the opposite way. (these are 2014 numbers, but I'm pretty sure that trend hasn't changed too much.) source

I understand that 99% of gun owners, myself included, are responsible people. But what about the ones that show the warning signs that they will turn violent, and are threatening to do so? Do you want to bet your life or the lives of your loved ones that they will be caught before they commit that act?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Yeah and then the other side of that is how many times are guns used to defend people every year? Even the lowball estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. You won't see these stories covered on CNN though. Your argument is a what if. What ifs aren't good enough to take away people's constitutional rights.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Yeah and then the other side of that is how many times are guns used to defend people every year? Even the lowball estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. You won't see these stories covered on CNN though. Your argument is a what if. What ifs aren't good enough to take away people's constitutional rights.


The argument I am taking is a giant what if, but that's why I am taking it. Basically I disagree with the law. I think it's a good idea but a bad implementation. I understand what they are trying to do...prevent preventable gun violence.

As far as the gun as defense, I can't agree more. I am a fan of home defense with firearms. I know I won't have a problem pulling a trigger, swinging a bat, stabbing with a knife, or otherwise incapacitating anyone that breaks into my home. However, I do everything I can do to prevent someone from trying to see my home as a target for a home invasion. Alarms, dogs, and locked doors are wonderful things. That's not the issue however.

The issue is this: If there was a way to legally take away a firearm from someone who you suspect is going to commit murder, would you do it?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

There's already laws to address this. If there's enough evidence you can arrest them and charge them with conspiracy to commit murder. The real question is, if someone is absolutely determined to kill someone, and you take away his gun, is he really going to change his mind?

This is a similar mindset to the folks that think a kid hell bent on shooting up his school is gonna be scared of violating his state's law against guns in schools. If you're hell-bent on murder, no gun control law is gonna stop you.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join