Official Statement of the Oregon Republican Party Regarding Your 2nd Amendment Rights

[-Taz-]

I am curious who is the we in your statement? " individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Your in Norway so how do you fit in the "we", are you an American national living abroad or is Norway our 51 state?

That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons.

I also have to say that in regards to your first comment (11:16) I have to say something that most likely have been one of the strongest arguments against the 2 amendment in general; The time it was written in.

At the time de 2´nd was ratified the US still remembered the war of independence and was maybe still on edge against the British. This also was a time not know of a strong state that protected it citizens. It also was a time when the people coming from Europe (yes you are originally from y´rope ;-) where expanding westwards and encountering Indians, wild animals and highwaymen. Of course the government want to reduce there responsibility in this by simply saying; The people of the US bear arms to defend your self, because we can´t do it for you. It’s the same thing you say the government is doing today, not taking responsibility and not doing their fair share.

Then I comes to the everlasting question; would the founding fathers, and the writers of the bill of rights support the 2´nd amendment today? Most likely not. They were all politicians, like Obama, and they wouldn´t like an armed population if they didn´t need it.

Some fun facts at the end is that that the 2´nd most likely “was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law (the awful oppressors), and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defence, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defence of the state”[I]<- Wikipedia[/I]

Even though they had it, they don´t have it anymore. The are one of only of two countries in Europe not to have an armed police force and by the size of the nation they have a significant lover gun crime rate most other countries in Europe.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Chadeaux]

Taz is in Norway? If that's the case, , he doesn't count.

Thank you Karen for being polite enough to actually speak your mind instead of being politically correct!

My kind of gal!!!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would not like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons.

I also have to say that in regards to this I have to say something that most likely have been one of the strongest arguments against the 2 amendment in general; The time it was written in.

At the time the 2´nd was ratified the US still remembered the war of independence and was maybe still on edge angainst the british. This also was a time not know of a strong state that protcetede it citisans. It also was a time when the people coming from Europe (yes you are originally from y´rope ;-) where expanding westwards and encountering Indians, wild animals and highwaymen. Of course the government want to reduce there responsibility in this by simply saying; The people of the US bear arms to defend your self, because we can´t do it for you. It’s the same thing you say the government is doing today, not taking responsibility and not doing their fair share.

Then I comes to the everlasting question; would the founding fathers, and the writers of the bill of rights support the 2´nd amendment today? Most likely not. They were all politicians, like Obama, and they wouldn´t like an armed population if they didn´t need it.

Some fun facts at the end is that that the 2´nd most likely “was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law (the awful oppressors), and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state”<- Wikipedia And even though they had it, they don´t have it anymore. There are the only of 2 countries in Europe not to have an armed policeforce and by the size of the nation they have a significant lover guncrime rate most other countries in Europe.

LOL if your going to Chicago you better be packing.

Chicago is the murder capital of America and yet has the strongest guns laws in America. Proof gun laws do not stop bad people, they only stop law abiding citizens from protecting their selves.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dave44]

Now this is funny! "That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would not like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons."

LOLOLOL Go try out Turkey then, it might be safer than Chicago, with one of the highest crime rates and strictest gun control laws in the country.
You are afraid of something for the wrong reasons! If you can find some guy with a concealed License you better try to snuggle up close! He is your only salvation!


LOLOLOLOL Pay attention Son!!! You might learn something!

 

[Dave44]

Sorry TH, We are on the same wave there, It shows how the media in other countries portray America. Most likely fed by the AP! lol

 

[bevo]

good luck tenderfoot. hahah.

 

[KarenD]

From today's "Ceasefire Oregon" anti-gun rally:

“And there is no good argument showing the Second Amendment prevents us from enacting these reasonable regulations,” said Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And by "reasonable regulations" she means a ban on all modern firearms and high-cap magazines, one registered gun limit, locked up at all times in govt-prescribed manner, yearly search of homes to verify correct storage, warrantless searches with suspicion of incorrect storage methods, 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine for violation of regulations; if your minor child accesses your registered gun in order to defend themselves, parents will face jail time and a $6,000 fine.

 

[bevo]

so progressive, they don't have an king clue. I'm glad I moved outa portland, most people I knew down there are libs, go figure.

 

[packerbacker]

Karen said: "10 years in prison and $250,000 fine for violation of regulations; if your minor child accesses your registered gun in order to defend themselves, parents will face jail time and a $6,000 fine." Dang Karen, we had a guy rape a young girl, cut both of her arms off and left her for dead that only ended up serving 8 years. Not sure if he got a fine. Then he was released by one of those tree-hugging parole boards and ended up killing a lady. Imagine if he had stored his gun incorrectly, OMG!!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

From today's "Ceasefire Oregon" anti-gun rally:

“And there is no good argument showing the Second Amendment prevents us from enacting these reasonable regulations,” said Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And by "reasonable regulations" she means a ban on all modern firearms and high-cap magazines, one registered gun limit, locked up at all times in govt-prescribed manner, yearly search of homes to verify correct storage, warrantless searches with suspicion of incorrect storage methods, 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine for violation of regulations; if your minor child accesses your registered gun in order to defend themselves, parents will face jail time and a $6,000 fine.

She is an idiot Karen, we have people who do not know the difference between clips and magazines, who think semi-auto means pull the trigger once and it keeps firing, who has never even held a firearm much less firing one writing laws for us. It would be like me writing aviation laws.

This is what we know, liberal democrats are after all guns period, they do not care what the BoR says and anyone who says different is blowing smoke screens.....

Do not know about your side of the country but where I am from and all my friends from ever state I have lived in that I am still in contact with are fed up with it, as far as we are concerned they can put their guns control laws where the sun don't ......... well you get my drift...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chadeaux]

From today's "Ceasefire Oregon" anti-gun rally:

“And there is no good argument showing the Second Amendment prevents us from enacting these reasonable regulations,” said Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And by "reasonable regulations" she means a ban on all modern firearms and high-cap magazines, one registered gun limit, locked up at all times in govt-prescribed manner, yearly search of homes to verify correct storage, warrantless searches with suspicion of incorrect storage methods, 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine for violation of regulations; if your minor child accesses your registered gun in order to defend themselves, parents will face jail time and a $6,000 fine.

I like that name, and it is so very fitting. It sounds almost like "Jackass Dingleberry" doesn't it?

 

[Dano Sverige]

Now this is funny! "That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would not like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons."

LOLOLOL Go try out Turkey then, it might be safer than Chicago, with one of the highest crime rates and strictest gun control laws in the country.
You are afraid of something for the wrong reasons! If you can find some guy with a concealed License you better try to snuggle up close! He is your only salvation!


LOLOLOLOL Pay attention Son!!! You might learn something!

Talking of "paying attention".....where in his statement did you see the word "not"?

"That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons."

Look before you leap?

Similarly TH seems not to have understood the meaning of ..."I read it as:"....and his next words being quoted as being said by the founders, hence the "we".

 

[Dano Sverige]

Taz is in Norway? If that's the case, f him, he doesn't count.

Not even going to report this disgraceful retort because:

A/ she's a woman (benefit of the doubt here)

B/ She's a political activist on the side of guns

C/ Add A&B together and you get "totally pointless exercise"!

So, having decided this all that remains is to ask the Mods - " Is "" an accepted response within the guidelines and rules of the site and if so it can be used by all without penalty?

Not interested in the hundreds of excuses for what the "F" could mean, we all KNOW what it means, just asking for clarification that it's not deemed "swearing", an "insult", a "vicious and uncalled for attack", and is a response available to us non-female members on the site?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Not even going to report this disgraceful retort because:

A/ she's a woman (benefit of the doubt here)

B/ She's a political activist on the side of guns

C/ Add A&B together and you get "totally pointless exercise"!

So, having decided this all that remains is to ask the Mods - " Is "" an accepted response within the guidelines and rules of the site and if so it can be used by all without penalty?

Not interested in the hundreds of excuses for what the "F" could mean, we all KNOW what it means, just asking for clarification that it's not deemed "swearing", an "insult", a "vicious and uncalled for attack", and is a response available to us non-female members on the site?

It's no wonder why a lot of the folks on this board were in favor of corporal punishment. Many obviously do not have the demeanor to hold a logical discussion with dignity and respect. If someone disagrees, they do not have the wherewithal to hold an intelligent discussion and quickly get frustrated. This leads to name calling etc. maybe in person these same people get frustrated and resort to violence? I hope not (especially since many are obviously gun owners). But in the end no matter how sad it is their is never a reason to treat another human being with dignity and respect regardless if we agree with them or not. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Talking of "paying attention".....where in his statement did you see the word "not"?

"That is an fair question, and I would answer it by "we=people in general". Me for instance is going to Chicago next week and I for one would like the idea of having a lot of people around me running around with concealed weapons."

Look before you leap?

Similarly TH seems not to have understood the meaning of ..."I read it as:"....and his next words being quoted as being said by the founders, hence the "we".

Go back and read it again Dano, his we included him and not implied said by our forefathers.....

Point is all the "we" living in other other countries have no say with it comes to "OUR" American rights, and if any of the "we" living in other countries are concerned about "all" thelaw abiding American citizens being armed and having concealed carry permits and a concealed firearm on us, then by all means please do "ALL" of us a favor and keep the "we" out of the US if it scares any of "you",....

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It's no wonder why a lot of the folks on this board were in favor of corporal punishment. Many obviously do not have the demeanor to hold a logical discussion with dignity and respect. If someone disagrees, they do not have the wherewithal to hold an intelligent discussion and quickly get frustrated. This leads to name calling etc. maybe in person these same people get frustrated and resort to violence? I hope not (especially since many are obviously gun owners). But in the end no matter how sad it is their is never a reason to treat another human being with dignity and respect regardless if we agree with them or not. Just my 2 cents.

Maybe we are just tired of listening to the same old tired "we are not coming after your guns", and the rest of the lefts rethertic......

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Not even going to report this disgraceful retort because:

A/ she's a woman (benefit of the doubt here)

B/ She's a political activist on the side of guns

C/ Add A&B together and you get "totally pointless exercise"!

So, having decided this all that remains is to ask the Mods - " Is "" an accepted response within the guidelines and rules of the site and if so it can be used by all without penalty?

Not interested in the hundreds of excuses for what the "F" could mean, we all KNOW what it means, just asking for clarification that it's not deemed "swearing", an "insult", a "vicious and uncalled for attack", and is a response available to us non-female members on the site?

No it is not acceptable, but if it isn't reported then a mod has to stumble on it.... It has been handled.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Maybe we are just listing of the same old tired "we are not coming after your guns", and the rest of the lefts rethertic......

Same old rhetoric on both sides but nothing is ever an excuse for not treating people with dignity and respect. No one is forcing anyone to post. There is never an excuse for an insult and it is merely a sign that someone does not have the wherewithal to respond in an intelligent manner.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Maybe we are just listing of the same old tired "we are not coming after your guns", and the rest of the lefts rethertic......

And talking about same old rhetoric ... Should I go back and count the number of "gun is An inanimate object", "guns don't kill people, people kill people", etc,etc, etc have been posted again and again and again. So you do realize just how funny your statement is - right.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Maybe we are just listing of the same old tired "we are not coming after your guns", and the rest of the lefts rethertic......

I would think the mods would just want to send a strong message that no personal slights or insults will be accepted - whether someone says its just a joke or any other BS like that.