Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Oregonhunter5, Feb 17, 2014.
Ashland proposal would ban carrying loaded weapons openly in public | OregonLive.com
Didn't San Diego just go through something like this?
I won't set a foot into Ashland . Ever.
Here are a few relies in the comment section of oregonlive.
Antisocial Network19 minutes ago
What kind of useless imbecile would oppose a ordnance requiring firearms owners store their weapons in a manner that prevents unauthorized access? Whoever these drooling dimwits are, they ought not be trusted with so much as a SuperSoaker. How can any thinking human being oppose mandatory safe firearms storage? Is there some new interpretation of the Second Amendment that requires firearms be available to anyone who can see them, the family kindergarten child, the depressed or bullied teenager, the roommate on drugs, the burglar raiding the family home while they are away at work? Listen up NRAbies and think this over well. This kind of lunatic opposition to sensible constitutional firearms regulation won't help you preserve your rational right to keep and bear when it costs innocent lives. It will only hurt all of us including those of us who want to preserve safe adult responsible firearms rights. Use your damned melon already!
Antisocial Network14 minutes ago
It is extremist unbalanced gunnies like you that will eventually cost all of us the right to possess firearms. I realize people like you don't have the gray matter to understand why mindless opposition to sensible firearms regulations will have the opposite effect you intend. Just take my word for it and go back to your John Wayne movies. When you mix lawful rational responsible gun ownership issues with lunatic extremist positions you only undermine your own cause. At least TRY to think that over.
Here's my response.
I'm extreme? Lol.
Ok. Your probably right. I'm extremely confident and you seem like a 5'1 gent with a complex. Yes? No?
Or are you just a nazi?
Either way, I must make you feel weak. I'm sorry, I'm really friendly.
Now back to John Wayne. Love that man!
As usual, Progressives passing restrictions on law abiding citizens to fix a problem that does not exist. Progressives kill Liberty the same way a boa constrictor kills its prey - by progressively restricting the freedom of its victim until it dies.
Its going to be fun watching crime go up and there ecomomy go into the tank.
"TO BE OR NOT TO BE"
If they still feel hurt, please have them fill one of these out;
Note: Be sure to "like" these pages, or use them as sources for "using satire and humor" as a means to educate. And I think it would be the ultimate if they got more likes than the actual MomsDemandAction page :laugh:
Mom's Demand Action - Uncovored
Moms Against Everything
Hypocrisy and Stupidity of Gun Control Advocates
lol - hurt feelings report.
What a Joke Ashland doesn't have a crime rate to worry about
Crime rate in Ashland, Oregon (OR): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics
3 murders 1999-2011 per 100,000 and they only have 20,366 people (Detroit had that before noon today) and 7 rapes in 2011 and that's with a State College!
Ashlands legal department statement sums it up nicely. " the ordinance could send a message to the Legislature about the community's wishes, but it says there may be no net impact on safety because gun-related incidents in the city are already low. "
My comment to the article
ashholeland. 9 years ago a kid partied at a judges house in asland (she and her husband were out of town) did drugs and drank jaegermeister got drunk. He proceede to drive to medford, engaged the police in high speed chase through medford,ran a redlight and hit my sons blazer. The crash killed my son and permanently crippled my sons friend. The stuff that was said and was done was unbelievable to me.
These idiots don't understand. This is "covered" already under the reckless endangering statute that every state already has. If a kid gets a hold of an unsecured gun and does something tragic with it then I have no problem with the owner being prosecuted by a LAW ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!
I read a few of the comments below the story. There are a quite few well intentioned (I'm sure) and misinformed people living in a world of unicorns, meadows and butterflies.
Libs like to call themselves "educated". This is exactly where these idiots should be directing their efforts. Educating the kids to leave gun(s) alone or better yet to handle them safely and educating the idiot gun owners out there (yes there are some idiots gun owners) to be responsible. But these morons trying to push this new law expect us, the responsible gun owners, to do the educating. But after thinking about it, this makes sense. It gives them more time to teach the kids the virtues of socialism in school and labeling us irresponsible.
Can't we give Ashland to the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia??? and while we are at it give Portland to Washington. Then all we would have to deal with are the leftie flakes in Eugene! :huh::banana: Gary
"...This kind of lunatic opposition to sensible constitutional firearms regulation won't help you preserve your rational right to keep and bear when it costs innocent lives."
Somehow I missed this in the Constitution and B.O.R. I'd appreciate it if someone could point it out to me. I guess I'm kind of slow.
Liberals; peace, love, happiness. But only for them.
Different situation. In San Diego a gun owner who was carrying unloaded was unlawfully detained, disarmed, then arrested by the cops. He filmed the whole thing and sued the crap out of the city. So then they made it illegal to carry at all. So now you couldn't open carry and the San Diego Sheriff had a requirement of showing "need" to be judged by him for issuance of a chl.
In fact, when I was at Miramar working as a shooting instructor in the Marines, we actually have the Sheriff's range on our base. We worked with them occasionally because, most of them were bubbleguming horrible shots. I was denied a CHL because,"I was more likely to kill a suspect due to military training."
So what you had there was a de facto ban on carrying firearms. It was illegal to open carry and the process for concealed was so restrictive and baised toward favortism that the court determined it was violating your right to carry for self defense. IF Ashland is also denying CHLs by the truckload AND bans open carry, then you could see a court case.
Separate names with a comma.