Staff Member
Diamond Supporter
Platinum Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,575
- Reactions
- 18,020
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?"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!
Hold your horses there cowboy.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.
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 do so.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
It is crap. I mean, yes, lies are powerful, but they are still just liesPoint of view crap is powerful, its probably why obiwan used it.