Oregon Class teaches volunteers to gather signatures for petition banning select firearms

[Joe Link]

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Jonnyuma]

"We know that people are committed to this," she said."

You know who's even MORE committed, sweets? The people opposing you.

Lift Every Voice, huh? Would you like to hear what I have to say?

SHUT UP, BABY KILLER!

 

[cigars]

"We know that people are committed to this," she said."

You know who's even MORE committed, sweets? The people opposing you.

Lift Every Voice, huh? Would you like to hear what I have to say?

SHUT UP, BABY KILLER!

It would be nice if they were committed to keeping teenagers from overdosing on heroin. Instead they just give them free needles, free heroin and places to shoot up. Yet law abiding gun owners are the problem?

 

[JRuby]

I support their right to gather signatures providing they do it legally. i do not support their attempt to remove my rights. The right to petition is as much a part of our bill of rights as is the second amendment. To me it's all or there is nothing.

 

[uberguy]

The right to petition is as much a part of our bill of rights as is the second amendment. To me it's all or there is nothing.

Hold your horses there cowboy.
You don't have the right to petition or by poorly drafted initiative take away constitutional rights or liberties.

All gun legislation (which this isn't) should be subject what's called 'strict scrutiny' - whereby any law proposing to impact constitutional rights must have a factual basis that will achieve a valid public goal AND be narrowly written/defined to achieve that with the most minimal infringement possible.
These initiatives are over broad, unfounded in fact supported by data and substantially infringe.

 

[tac]

Sedition - the crime of attempting and or encouraging the replacement of the legal framework of a nation by means of underhanded manipulation of opinion to counter commonly-held obligations and established national interests.

Subversion - similar to the above, but with the broad aim of replacing the establishment with another.

These teachers of yours are committing both crimes. The late Benedict Arnold committed both offences - when added up they become treason.

Add to that the crime of criminally attempting to influence the mind-set of a minor on behalf of a viewpoint that runs counter to the CoTUSA, Amendment Number 2, which is not a 'recommendation' or a 'viewpoint', but a requirement in law, that a militia [be capable] of being found from within the body of the general population of the Commonwealth of States, thereby requiring that, in re, those persons both keep and bear arms, if needed.

tac

 

[JRuby]

The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.
No where does it say that the simple act of petitioning is controlled by the substance or merit of the petition. If so please point it out.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Apparently the phrase ".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not protect us from states (and treasonous, unhinged leftist antis) infringing on our rights. This is a problem.

What the Constitution Center says:
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
(Edit: To get to the 2A article, click "MENU" in the lower left, then click "Amendment II".)

I had to look up the meaning of this word used in the above article:
Desuetude - Wikipedia

 

[NW Backpacker]

The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.
No where does it say that the simple act of petitioning is controlled by the substance or merit of the petition. If so please point it out.

If Attorney General Rosenblum or the Oregon Supreme Court had done their legally required duty, and if they had any respect for the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of Oregon, and if they had any understanding of the dismal history of people around the world who were denied the right of self defense, they would have thrown out the IP43 petition as unconstitutional. If the ballot title has not been approved, then it is not too late for the court to throw it out.

 

[JRuby]

If Attorney General Rosenblum or the Oregon Supreme Court had done their legally required duty, and if they had any respect for the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of Oregon, and if they had any understanding of the dismal history of people around the world who were denied the right of self defense, they would have thrown out the IP43 petition as unconstitutional. If the ballot title has not been approved, then it is not too late for the court to do so.

So what exactly is the Oregon supreme courts legal required duty as documented - not some ones opinion?

 

[bbbass]

Sedition - the crime of attempting and or encouraging the replacement of the legal framework of a nation by means of underhanded manipulation of opinion to counter commonly-held obligations and established national interests.

Subversion - similar to the above, but with the broad aim of replacing the establishment with another.

These teachers of yours are committing both crimes. The late Benedict Arnold committed both offences - when added up they become treason.

Add to that the crime of criminally attempting to influence the mind-set of a minor on behalf of a viewpoint that runs counter to the CoTUSA, Amendment Number 2, which is not a 'recommendation' or a 'viewpoint', but a requirement in law, that a militia [be capable] of being found from within the body of the general population of the Commonwealth of States, thereby requiring that, in re, those persons both keep and bear arms, if needed.

tac

Wow!! I think I love you.

 

[turbo_vanner]

from a certain point of view banning 'assault weapons' does not infringe upon someones right to bear arms, so from that same point of view, the petition does not undermine or subvert the constitution.

 

[turbo_vanner]

its only dishonest and disingenuous from another certain point of view.

From theirs, the term is explicitly defined in their petition, and has nothing to do with what we think of as an assault rifle. They even went so far as to change it to assault 'style' rifle, since in functionality, it is not the same.

As far as what arms should be possesed, there is no explicit definition of that in the 2A, so continuing from that point of view, the right to arm yourself with a bolt action .22 is still a right to bear an arm, and you can still form a militia with them. It wouldn't do you much good, but you could.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

its only dishonest and disingenuous from another certain point of view.

From theirs, the term is explicitly defined in their petition, and has nothing to do with what we think of as an assault rifle. They even went so far as to change it to assault 'style' rifle, since in functionality, it is not the same.

As far as what arms should be possesed, there is no explicit definition of that in the 2A, so continuing from that point of view, the right to arm yourself with a bolt action .22 is still a right to bear an arm, and you can still form a militia with them. It wouldn't do you much good, but you could.

Facts are facts. The 2nd amendment does specify that the type of arms shall not be infringed. We can try this Obi Wan Kenobi crap, but simple fact is, That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Specification of type is frankly infringement.

Obi Wan lied with his certain point of view crap and your usage is not any better. Facts are facts.

 

[turbo_vanner]

Facts are facts. The 2nd amendment does specify that the type of arms shall not be infringed. We can try this Obi Wan Kenobi crap, but simple fact is, That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Specification of type is frankly infringement.

Obi Wan lied with his certain point of view crap and your usage is not any better. Facts are facts.

those are not facts, they are an opinion based upon interpretation. Where in the 2A does it specify what arms shall not be infringed upon? Only the right itself shall not be infringed, which can then be exercised with a bolt action 22.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

those are not facts, they are an opinion based upon interpretation. Where in the 2A does it specify what arms shall not be infringed upon? Only the right itself shall not be infringed, which can then be exercised with a bolt action 22.

It doesn't, which it could have. It states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are adding infringements as to type is a violation of what is stated.

For your point to be valid, would require the 2nd to make exceptions. It doesn't, therefore your opinion here is logically invalid.

 

[turbo_vanner]

this is why I said its all up to someones point of view. You see any restriction as an infringement of your right to bear arms. Others see the ability to still own a select few arms as a right to still bear arms. Key word is arms, not ALL or ANY arms.

Further, you think that for 'my' point to be valid, the amendment must include exceptions, whereas the other point of view would assume the amendment has nothing to do with type unless it is specified, therefor, no type is protected.

Point of view crap is powerful, its probably why obiwan used it.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

this is why I said its all up to someones point of view. You see any restriction as an infringement of your right to bear arms. Others see the ability to still own a select few arms as a right to still bear arms. Key word is arms, not ALL or ANY arms.

One side is right here. And you are making a logic error here. Adding an infringement based on type is already factually false in the 2nd. When one speaks of Arms in general with no specifics given, it would include the category of all arms linguistically. To remove items from this set, where this is explicitly forbidden by the statement "shall not be infringed" just shows anyone making this argument does not know how to read English well.

Further, you think that for 'my' point to be valid, the amendment must include exceptions, whereas the other point of view would assume the amendment has nothing to do with type unless it is specified, therefor, no type is protected.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. I can't say it any nicer, but this is so far from what the words say that it makes no sense. The amendment speaks of arms, general. To say that the general shall not be infringed protects the subcategories of specifics. Assuming it does not, shows a lack of logic and reading comprehension.

Point of view crap is powerful, its probably why obiwan used it.

It is crap. I mean, yes, lies are powerful, but they are still just lies

 

[JRuby]

We all know the words to the 2A. Everyone will never agree on its meaning. I know what it means to me. The only question I want to know is how much my right to arm myself is worth to those that want to disarm me. It will be expensive

 

[JRuby]

We all know the words to the 2A. Everyone will never agree on its meaning. I know what it means to me. The only question I want to know is how much my right to arm myself is worth to those that want to disarm me. It will be expensive