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 legislature goes after firearms

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soundguy

Indeed.

Worshiping any sort of tool is silly. But, doesn't the First Amendment allow for that without bias?? So you would violate someone's First Amendment rights, as well as their Second?


Once they get done with guns, they'll be after the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster next. Can't have anyone worshipping anthropomorphized spaghetti with strategically placed meatballs, even if it is to mock others.




posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They'll take my FSM banner from my cold dead hands!!



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Wouldn’t need to eliminate the Second if maybe there was a push to eliminate the Third by quartering troops in select homes of those that plot to suppress the rights of the people?



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

That's true!! Why didn't I think of that.

But they're armed...wouldn't that violate the new paradigm?



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Still floors me how they want to give more and more power over us to the government and they spend all this time railing about how horrible and fascist Trump is and how bad the government now is as a result.

You'd think at some point this would dawn on them that if the government had *less* power over all of us, then Trump would be far less scary than he is.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

APPLAUSE!!!!


From your computer screen to their eyes, and brains. But don't count on sudden enlightenment. It's easier to screech at the sky, then it is to actually come up with solutions equitable to all.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The troops, yes they need to be armed since they are troops. Those homeowners probably wouldn’t be the types to be armed...optics and all.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Predictions

First this will create a huge purchase of guns and ammo just in case these bills pass.

Second, people who feel strongly about owning guns will be leaving the state if these bills pass



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just Exactly How are States getting Around a U.S. Citizens Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms which is Written in the Constitution , and to be NOT Infringed Upon by Any Revised Federal or State Government Legislation ? If the Second Amendment can be Negated other than another Amendment added to the Constitution through a VOTE , would not such Laws be deemed Illegal , Unconstitutional , and Null in Void under our Present Laws ?



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

A lot of them likely will be when the challenges work their way up through the courts, but a lot of damage can be done in the meantime.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well, here is the thing. The Constitution for the most part only limits the Federal government. The States retain rights that are not explicitly retained by the People unless prohibited for the States to retain those rights, but both the States and the People do share some rights.

States can however regulate as is their right, but ultimately cannot remove privileges enjoyed by the People of the several States. An example would be that some States had Jim Crow Laws which infringed on the Rights held by the People of those States, thus illegal.

So here is the thing, the President could issue an executive order to those States to knock off the gun grabbing crap like these Oregon laws are doing and then lay the smack down if they ignored him. Like was done with forced integration. The Supreme Court can get involved and back the President or face impeachment from the House and removal by the Senate.

But we can’t even agree to build a wall that was approved YEARS ago and are playing games right now. So if Mississippi wants to go for segregation again, now would be the time...I suppose.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildbob77 I don't live in the NW USA, but I did go buy 300 .223 rounds not because of this thread, but because they are on sale!! It's my after Christmas shopping!



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Burdman I agree whole heartedly!!! Praise the lord and pass the ammo!!



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
How can Kate Brown talk about securing firearms with more regulation when she doesn't even help secure the the damn border? Every time they come up with new ideas for regulating firearms it's always under the guise that they are all "Assault Weapons" I don't know what the hell they are talking about Assault rifles have been banned for 30 years or more. Besides what is this new regulations going to do. If a person has made it up in their mind that they are going to commit a mass shooting it's not going to stop them from loading a 30 round mag. However, they believe everyone should be limited and those firearms under lock and key. Which means you might as well not have a firearms altogether. What purpose does a firearm serve if you cannot quickly access it?

Of course it needs to be stored, but limiting rounds, placing mags away from each other etc making up nonsense regulation is just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. In a real world scenario imagine fumbling around for your firearm in the dark and trying to remember the code, the keys to the lock, where the ammo is, is my family members in imminent danger. Meanwhile the intruder has more firepower than you do and you have no power to call the police on your voip phone.

You can have all the regulations, police, laws and rules, none of that makes a difference, but you can prepare and limit the situation by being on the same level as the intruder. Schools want to be a gun free zone, well you can wish for that all you want, but it comes down to having an armed security officer, and metal detectors is the best protection you can get.

You don't lower mass shootings by limiting the very tool that is needed to protect. You want to disarm everyone. Well the world doesn't work that way. If one of the people in those situations was armed there would be less deaths, I would take less deaths over lots of deaths any day.



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

restrict ammunition purchases to no more than 20 rounds within a 30 day period,


I guess that stops gun clubs from holding competitions as the monthly 600 yard competition i go to once a month are 40 round competition.



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I don't think they care too much.

Just a guess.







 
31
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join