Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 37,322
- Reactions
- 128,799
Well I just relieved my bladder on his Birkenstocks.
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.
Well I just relieved my bladder on his Birkenstocks.
Wow, you folks sure talk big game about rights and freedoms, but when a law is voted on by its states inhabitants, which a state has a right to do. Which in no way infringes on the 2A, but requires changes in the way transactions between private parties are done, you cannot blast it enough.
Leave the state if you do not like the laws. Such a bunch of hypocrites and tunnel vision advocates.
I do not often post, but this just made me upset.
None of your colorful descriptives fit, but, that is allright. Just a poignant reminder of the tunnel vision I mentioned.
Stomper, the constitutional argument though I understand your point, the 3 branches of our government have on multiple occasions have disagreed with your interpretation.
Whether the electorate is involved populace or not is irrelevant to the meaning of law. You make your bed, you lie in it.
I carry a gun, I have had a CHL for 20 years, in AZ and now OR.
I do however agree with a states right to regulate the transfer of firearms. I think that is what state's rights are all about. Just how I interprate freedom.
I was commenting on the tone of the response's prior to mine.
Wow, you folks sure talk big game about rights and freedoms, but when a law is voted on by its states inhabitants, which a state has a right to do. Which in no way infringes on the 2A, but requires changes in the way transactions between private parties are done, you cannot blast it enough.
Leave the state if you do not like the laws. Such a bunch of hypocrites and tunnel vision advocates.
I do not often post, but this just made me upset.
I just do not agree this is a gun issue, as it is a legislated and beurocratic issue to resolve it and streamline. Or remove it if it is odious to the constituants.
Universal bacground checks are not the beginning of anything. They are a background check. They, using technology attempt to regulate a currently unnregulated section of trade and transfer of firearms within the state laws . Yes it is a hassle, some of the definitions for transfer are ludicrious, but it is state law. And a Sherrif is a sworn officer of the court to uphold the law. Not pick and choose what is politically expediant for him.
I just do not agree this is a gun issue, as it is a legislated and beurocratic issue to resolve it and streamline. Or remove it if it is odious to the constituants.
I end here, thanks for the discussion, and micturition humor. Be well, be safe, be kind, think of others before self
If they actually wanted merely to institute background checks on permanent transfers they would have written a law that actually did that.Universal bacground checks are not the beginning of anything. They are a background check.
And a Sherrif is a sworn officer of the court to uphold the law. Not pick and choose what is politically expediant for him.