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

[Wombat of Doom]

Words have meaning.

 

[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

 

[turbo_vanner]

the word 'arms' can just as easily mean many of one type of gun, or many types of guns in general, it's not clearly stated. Thats why these points of views are usually decided by judges.

If they were facts, California would not have its bans would it?

If you need a dictionary definition of the word 'arms' I could google it for you. Nowhere does it say the term is all inclusive of all types of guns.

 

[turbo_vanner]

now, if 'the right to bear any and all arms', or 'the right to bear any type of arms' was the wording, the left would have less of a foot to stand on.

Our legal system clearly interprets the wording as ambiguous enough to allow votes on things like IP43. Simply stating things as facts is pointless. If they are facts, prove them with evidence, and stop this bill. For all of our sake.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

the word 'arms' can just as easily mean many of one type of gun, or many types of guns in general, it's not clearly stated. Thats why these points of views are usually decided by judges.

Incorrect! Arms is a general term. It is clearly stated. Whether judges and folks who can't read and understand the concept of how the language works.

If I say the right to keep and walk dogs shall not be infringed you understand intrinsically that the doberman is included.

If they were facts, California would not have its bans would it?

So you are operating under the assumption they are constitutional and that these folks give a crap about constitutionality. California's bans are frankly highly unconstitutional.

If you need a dictionary definition of the word 'arms' I could google it for you. Nowhere does it say the term is all inclusive of all types of guns.

Arms refers to weapons of any kind, be it firearms, polearms, airguns, crossbow, etc. The term is actually a general term so, all guns are arms, but not all arms are guns.

 

[turbo_vanner]

the only thing im assuming about CA is that their law makers do not share your point of view, and that point of view cannot even be argued with apparent facts.... so what good are facts?

It boils down to peoples point of view on what bearing an arm entails.


*these are not my opinions either, its just easy to understand why the left thinks its ok to encroach when viewed from their point of view.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

the only thing im assuming about CA is that their law makers do not share your point of view, and that point of view cannot even be argued with apparent facts.... so what good are facts?

It boils down to peoples point of view on what bearing an arm entails.


*these are not my opinions either, its just easy to understand why the left thinks its ok to encroach when viewed from their point of view.

But the simple fact is that in a world without facts, there is no meaning except opinion. That is ideological anarchy in which communication is impossible.

Linguistically the 2a is crystal clear. But it is being used as TP when you start saying type is restrictable within it. Let's cut the crap and speak plainly.

CA has laws that are ridiculously unconstitutional. Let's just leave that one alone. I am tempted to wear the shirt with the CA flag with a bear with no fore limbs next time I have to travel to that Latrine of a state.

 

[turbo_vanner]

isnt law inherently opinion based? Thats why we have judges, jurys, and votes.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

isnt law inherently opinion based? Thats why we have judges, jurys, and votes.

Not supposed to be. Lex Rex. The law is supposed to be fairly and impartiality be administered.

 

[Jonnyuma]

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.

Our legal system clearly interprets the wording as ambiguous

The SCOTUS has ruled on this and the majority opinion (Scalia) stated that "common use" was the standard. Not the best standard, but it's something.

 

[tac]

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.

The petition, per se, does NOT undermine or subvert the CoUSA, but coercing children to sign up to it does. It is nothing more than an attempt to coerce children to share another person's opinion or political agenda, and THAT, Friend, IS non-Constitutional.

A free petition asks people of like-mind and opinion to amass a weight of opinion with a view to changing things, or objecting to things. You can sign up or not. But children in class being required to sign up? I think not. Here in yUK you sign a petition over the declaration that you are 18 or over - the voting age.

tac

 

[turbo_vanner]

Uh, actual childrens signatures would be invalid...

Those 18 and over have hardly been coerced. its not the teachers putting this stuff in their heads.

 

[SA Shooter]

You know...I am beginning to identify the source of the liberal leftist rant...

These are the kids I saw in the grocery story 20 years ago throwing a tantrum at the checkout stand because Mommy said "No" when they wanted some candy. So they scream, fall to the ground, throw a fit and Mommy became embarrassed, giving them what they wanted so they would shut their pie holes.

Sound familiar to anyone else?

 

[gearhead]

You know...I am beginning to identify the source of the liberal leftist rant...

These are the kids I saw in the grocery story 20 years ago throwing a tantrum at the checkout stand because Mommy said "No" when they wanted some candy. So they scream, fall to the ground, throw a fit and Mommy became embarrassed, giving them what they wanted so they would shut their pie holes.

Sound familiar to anyone else?

And now they're teachers. One more reason my kids are home schooled rather than indoctrinated by the state.

 

[turbo_vanner]

Im pretty fresh out of public Oregon schools including Southern Oregon University in Ashland... Not sure what indoctrination you're talking about. Most teachers, even liberal ones dont bring up politics, or if they do, they respect others opinions. Can't say at any point did a teacher try to sway my thoughts politically.

Now, the student body... thats a different matter. I had students in my face every day at southern oregon protesting or petitioning something. I think this is the same thing thats happening in high schools today. I mean, look at how much attention the Florida school kids are getting, its getting other students involved. And while teachers and parents are supporting them, these kids are drawing their own conclusions. Probably from seeing and hearing about their peers getting shot.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

children have been programed into lemmings

Im pretty fresh out of public Oregon schools including Southern Oregon University in Ashland... Not sure what indoctrination you're talking about. Most teachers, even liberal ones dont bring up politics, or if they do, they respect others opinions. Can't say at any point did a teacher try to sway my thoughts politically.

ofcourse your not aware of any indoctrination, no one thats been brain washed "is aware" just as you dont seem to be on the subject

 

[turbo_vanner]

lol, ok.

Suppose the same goes for everyone then. If anyone denies it, it must be true, because they just don't know it.

Seriously though, how did I get indoctrinated if my teachers respected my opposing viewpoints? Or if I have opposing view points at all?

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

lol, ok.

Suppose the same goes for everyone then. If anyone denies it, it must be true, because they just don't know it.

Seriously though, how did I get indoctrinated if my teachers respected my opposing viewpoints? Or if I have opposing view points at all?

I dont argue with people I state my opinion and thats it
I especially dont argue with millennial's with no real world experience

have a great day

 

[turbo_vanner]

lol, yet here I sit, running a small manufacturing business, at 30, with no real world experience. You sure figured me out.

I must have been really brainwashed by some liberal teachers for me to pull that off.

 

[ma96782]

IMHO, they are Un-American. I mean, they are moving to restrict my Rights under the Constitution. Call it an effort at, "incremental creep".

Consider for a moment.......What if?

A background check and permit was needed in order to attend a church?
A tax was attached to the background check and permit (call it a users fee) to attend church?
A membership list for each church was to be kept and reported to the Central Government?
Certain "prohibited persons" could be barred from attendance at churches?
Attendance at church could be restricted to once per month?
The Government could set the bounds for "reasonable and common sense" approved messages, to be preached?
Purchase, possession and carrying of "Books of Worship" could be restricted to particular times and activities?
Certain religions could be verboten?

If they (Anti-American Gun Grabbers) really wanted to see change........
Why not just be honest and seek to repeal the entire 2nd Amendment?

Put that on the ballot and they would probably only have a smidgen of support for their cause.

Aloha, Mark