Jeff Merkley = No Clue on Firearms

[fingolfen]

FYI - I know that all states don't have laws similar to Oregon - which of course begs the question "why not?" If this is an issue that's already being addressed at the state level, why, as another poster put it, "close the same door twice"? Why does the Federal Government need to be involved in an issue that the states are already taking up (or not) on their own?

 

[CEF1959]

So that would be an argument in favor of Merkley's vote against a federal mandate and in favor of allowing the states to decide.

 

[gunnoob75]

...

Uh, he had no clue that Oregon had already fixed the gun show loophole. Therefor, he was clueless.

The fix of the loophole was fixed by writing more laws, in Oregon. Using Oregon Law, if you will.

Therefor, he is CLUELESS about OREGON LAW.

Two plus two...

 

[Trlsmn]

So that would be an argument in favor of Merkley's vote against a federal mandate and in favor of allowing the states to decide.

What makes you draw that conclusion? Why would you state fingolfens position in this matter instead of asking his position? Seems to me have "no clue" nor are you interested

 

[CEF1959]

Um, because he asked, "Why does the federal government need to be involved in an issue the state are already taking up?" That was my first clue. Did you read his most recent post?

 

[CEF1959]

...

Uh, he had no clue that Oregon had already fixed the gun show loophole. Therefor, he was clueless.

The fix of the loophole was fixed by writing more laws, in Oregon. Using Oregon Law, if you will.

Therefor, he is CLUELESS about OREGON LAW.

Two plus two...

Huh? Merkley is just trying to extend the Oregon rule to other states. I object. I say let the other states decide. But to say that Merkley "had no clue that Oregon law had already fixed [sic] the gun show loophole" has no basis. Where did you come up with that? You can't just make it up.

 

[fuhr52]

Merkley is a freshman senator and he will do what ever the party tells him if he wants help getting re-elected. It does not matter what the issue is.

 

[Trlsmn]

Um, because he asked, "Why does the federal government need to be involved in an issue the state are already taking up?" That was my first clue. Did you read his most recent post?

I read everything! Unfortunately I am cooking dinner right now........to be continued.........................

 

[fingolfen]

-----------------

Okay - let's look at the statements in context, no bold face:

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights, and I support the ability of law abiding gun owners to own and use firearms.

At this point he is referring to his constituency, the people of Oregon and their rights. I interpret these rights as both rights under Federal and State law since Federal Law is bound by the Second Amendment and Oregon law is bound by Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution.

At the same time, however, I believe that we must protect our children and ensure that deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals.

At this point he's using the inclusive first person plural possessive. As the previous sentence referred to the "people of Oregon", I'm forced to conclude that he is still referring to himself and his constituency.

For this reason, I support common sense measures that help keep our communities safe including mandatory background checks and closing the gun show loophole that permits unlicensed private vendors to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows without background checks.

At this point he is STILL using the the inclusive first person plural possessive, which means I am still forced to conclude that he refers to Oregon and Oregonians in this statement and is asserting that Oregon has a "gun-show loophole" - which is empirically incorrect. At no point does Merkley attempt to draw his statements outside of his Oregon constituency.

I can therefore hypothesize two reasons for that incorrect assertion and draw inferences from them:

1) He is unaware of Oregon Law
2) He is aware of Oregon Law, but attempting to mislead the public in the service of a greater ideology.

Either reason above indicates that Merkley is not fit to serve as Senator in my book.

-----------------

CEF1959 - I think you missed this one...

 

[Jamie6.5]

What part of "closing the gun show loophole" has anything to do with recent Senate actions anyway?
The right to carry across state lines has nothing to do with it.
Sotomayor's confirmation has nothing to do with it. Sotomayor's position is that the 2ndA doesn't apply to the states anyway!

More obfuscation and misdirection from the left. Goes good with their outright lies.
Protect our children indeed!
How about protecting them when we're on vacation in another state?
How about having a federal "castle law" so we can protect them in our homes, regardless of where we live.
Protecting our children is left up to us because obviously neither the state nor the fed can do it. And the left would reduce or eliminate our best means to do that if they could. They are actively showing us that in the Senate right now.
Hence Merkley's lame replies to legitimate calls and emails.
Tool of the left. When they get elected they go from drinking to serving up the kool-aide.

 

[JAFO]

Merkley is just trying to extend the Oregon rule to other states.

Definitely Socialist if not full blown Commie. Typical of the elitist left. There are too many leftist libtard pinko commies on this site who support that party.

 

[Scott]

I just want to know why people protect people against the 2A? Obama and many others make their views known and many people think that they are good for our rights. I thought that this site is for firearm rights. Just a thought..

Scott

 

[Trlsmn]

I just want to know why people protect people against the 2A? Obama and many others make their views known and many people think that they are good for our rights. I thought that this site is for firearm rights. Just a thought..

Scott

That!

I have come to the point where you are either with us or against us, once that line is crossed I offer no forgiveness only shunning.

 

[Scott]

I am of free will and I myself interpet everything that Obama, Shumer, Boxer, Pelosi, Reed, Biden, Clinton and many others say as anti-gun but many seem to think that they are good for us. I am with you Trismn that there is no interpatation needed as to what they think. Oh well......

Scott

 

[CEF1959]

I have come to the point where you are either with us or against us, once that line is crossed I offer no forgiveness only shunning.

Thinking and respectful disagreement = bad
Close-minded dogma and shunning opposing points of view = good

Got it. Thanks.

 

[CEF1959]

Definitely Socialist if not full blown Commie. Typical of the elitist left. There are too many leftist libtard pinko commies on this site who support that party.

Tip: Don't post after drinking.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

As an aside...
Their words mean little. It is their actions that incriminate them.
Also, Merkley is a left wing lap dog and is exactly what the lefty Oregon voters love. He will be in office for many years as long as he continues to be a sock puppet for the left.

 

[elsullo]

That!

I have come to the point where you are either with us or against us, once that line is crossed I offer no forgiveness only shunning.

Decades ago I was acquainted with the Chairman of the Oregon Communist Party. He was a Life Member of the NRA, as well as quite a pleasant fellow. He enjoyed collecting guns, shooting, hunting deer, and hand-loading custom loads for his rifles. There was a Kentucky Long Rifle above his fireplace.

Politically, he insisted upon firearm freedoms for all citizens, so that people could defend themselves and if necessary repell the actions of any dictatorial government that might try to take their freedoms. He wanted all willing citizens to be able to be fully armed, like in Switzerland. He noted that the first thing that the Fascists in Germany did when Hitler was "elected" was to disarm the population, starting with gun-registration, and then confiscation.

I enjoyed privately debating with him, to polish my own positions and exposition. He had no "contageous" dogma and I had nothing to fear from exchanging ideas with him. I certainly had no need to shun contact with him..............................elsullo

 

[Trlsmn]

Thinking and respectful disagreement = bad
Close-minded dogma and shunning opposing points of view = good

Got it. Thanks.

Nice try, take note of the Subject of the post and the conversation within.

Jeff Merkley = No Clue on Firearms

Taking things out of context to mean something they don't = Propaganda

You got it? Thanks

You know I was speaking of our government representatives and not NWFA members but go ahead and tell me it was otherwise.

 

[Trlsmn]

Decades ago I was acquainted with the Chairman of the Oregon Communist Party. He was a Life Member of the NRA, as well as quite a pleasant fellow. He enjoyed collecting guns, shooting, hunting deer, and hand-loading custom loads for his rifles. There was a Kentucky Long Rifle above his fireplace.

Politically, he insisted upon firearm freedoms for all citizens, so that people could defend themselves and if necessary repell the actions of any dictatorial government that might try to take their freedoms. He wanted all willing citizens to be able to be fully armed, like in Switzerland. He noted that the first thing that the Fascists in Germany did when Hitler was "elected" was to disarm the population, starting with gun-registration, and then confiscation.

I enjoyed privately debating with him, to polish my own positions and exposition. He had no "contageous" dogma and I had nothing to fear from exchanging ideas with him. I certainly had no need to shun contact with him..............................elsullo

Again my post and my line in the sand is directed at my politcal representatives not against the people here that would apologize for them.

I feel my willingness to engage people with different points of view here speaks for itself