Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[Kruel J]

Lot's of people say "God given"... tho indeed I was being provocative when I wrote that. Reality is... I really don't care whether people say natural rights (which also has a problematic history) or God given.

But the guys that wrote the constitution did not consider that they were "giving" us rights... surely you mean that in a different way... I prefer to understand it as they affirmed or verified those rights that are implicit to being a free human being. If you read the Federalist Papers, you can learn all about what those smart dudes thought, researched, understood, believed, and enshrined in a blueprint for a new Republic. It's worthwhile reading.

Yes, I didn't exactly mean "given". More like "protected in writing".

 

[USAisTheBest]

Lot's of people say "God given"... tho indeed I was being provocative when I wrote that. Reality is... I really don't care whether people say natural rights (which also has a problematic history) or God given.

But the guys that wrote the constitution did not consider that they were "giving" us rights... surely you mean that in a different way... I prefer to understand it as they affirmed or verified those rights that are implicit to being a free human being. If you read the Federalist Papers, you can learn all about what those smart dudes thought, researched, understood, believed, and enshrined in a blueprint for a new Republic. It's worthwhile reading.

Yes, I've read them. Pretty much required reading for one of my degrees along with the lengthy paper written on it.

Your understanding is yours to have, but it does not dictate more then that really. We have laws, checks and balances, and an evolving country that requires contemporary interpretations to fit well into our society and change with how people vote.

You're as ever welcome to your views, but I prefer hard facts along with our reality in the present.

 

[Ura-Ki]

See, here is the whole problem, the false belief that the BOR is a "living Document" when it isn't, and further believing that States can adjust or outright circumvent it by taking action on their own is NOT a part of how this idea works! You say the States have certain rights to choose the what and how they follow the law, but that too is false! The BOR has only ONE way to make changes, and its not within the powers adjudicated to the State to effect that change! I see nothing contained within the 10th that allows the States the right to side step the BOR, even when an issue isn't directly covered by the amendments contained, it still must follow the existing BOR, or its null and voided! Right now, the "Several States" have State A.G. and Gov'ners who routinely side step the Preemption status, including Oregon's Gov'ness and A.G! Look at the immigration issues and "Sanctuary State Status," a very clear Preemptive move against the national laws covered explicitly in our national immigration laws! That's the problem, the States taking more power over the will of the people, and violating Fed laws! Same issue with State preemptive laws on Concealed Carry, the states preempt the 2nd by specifically restricting or regulating the law, and while not called out specifically in the 2nd, it IS implied and is further supported by the other amendments, so, The State does not have the right to limit, regulate, or restrict the exercising of a constitutional right!

 

[USAisTheBest]

Yes, I didn't exactly mean "given". More like "protected in writing".

Protected in writing is probably the best way to put it, and at that entirely ratifiable under the same Constitutional protections.

 

[USAisTheBest]

See, here is the whole problem, the false belief that the BOR is a "living Document" when it isn't, and further believing that States can adjust or outright circumvent it by taking action on their own is NOT a part of how this idea works! You say the States have certain rights to choose the what and how they follow the law, but that too is false! The BOR has only ONE way to make changes, and its not within the powers adjudicated to the State to effect that change! I see nothing contained within the 10th that allows the States the right to side step the BOR, even when an issue isn't directly covered by the amendments contained, it still must follow the existing BOR, or its null and voided! Right now, the "Several States" have State A.G. and Gov'ners who routinely side step the Preemption status, including Oregon's Gov'ness and A.G! Look at the immigration issues and "Sanctuary State Status," a very clear Preemptive move against the national laws covered explicitly in our national immigration laws! That's the problem, the States taking more power over the will of the people, and violating Fed laws! Same issue with State preemptive laws on Concealed Carry, the states preempt the 2nd by specifically restricting or regulating the law, and while not called out specifically in the 2nd, it IS implied and is further supported by the other amendments, so, The State does not have the right to limit, regulate, or restrict the exercising of a constitutional right!

Amendments are completely ratifiable. So the states in unison and agreement do in fact have the right to ratify, limit, regulate, and restrict Amendments.

Edit: and as I mentioned in another comment SC interpretations leave states open to their 10th powers in creating gun control

 

[Ura-Ki]

Amendments are completely ratifiable. So the states in unison and agreement do in fact have the right to ratify, limit, regulate, and restrict Amendments.

Collectively, Yes, independently, NO, and that is a major problem!

 

[USAisTheBest]

Collectively, Yes, independently, NO, and that is a major problem!

I do not see it as a problem. It's a balance, and a democracy. If the majority by quite a lot wants to change Amendments it is their right given by this constitution to do so through elected representatives, that's democracy.

 

[bbbass]

You're absolutely welcome to challenge me on anything you wish, as long as it's respectfully done. And of course backed up by accurate factual information, or sourced precedence.

I don't need you to welcome debate. Nor will I ever have any respect for you. But I was civil until you disrespected me by obviously not fully reading my first reply to you and then implying that I am a big government guy. So you insulted me first and it seems you can dish it out but can't take it.

Again, I think your position as an educator has you spoiled. As far as being factual, I think you and I would disagree on even the most basic of so called "facts". Especially in a world full of post-modernism.

To be clear, it's not that I wish to engage in ad-hominem attacks. But the truth is that I don't like you or your attitude. If saying so, is disrespectful in turn, so be it.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So, by example, the State has elected to ignore a Presidential executive order on immigration, AND has installed Sanctuary State status, clearly against established law, and your OK with the State doing that? Then we have Cities whose Mayors do the same, and that's also OK? Where are the checks and balances that should have prevented any of this, and why are these politicians not being held accountable for breaking Fed laws?

 

[USAisTheBest]

I don't need you to welcome debate. Nor will I ever have any respect for you. But I was civil until you disrespected me by obviously not fully reading my first reply to you and then implying that I am a big government guy. So you insulted me first and it seems you can dish it out but can't take it.

Again, I think your position as an educator has you spoiled. As far as being factual, I think you and I would disagree on even the most basic of so called "facts". Especially in a world full of post-modernism.

To be clear, it's not that I wish to engage in ad-hominem attacks. But the truth is that I don't like you or your attitude. If saying so, is disrespectful in turn, so be it.

Ok, kiddo.

 

[USAisTheBest]

So, by example, the State has elected to ignore a Presidential executive order on immigration, AND has installed Sanctuary State status, clearly against established law, and your OK with the State doing that? Then we have Cities whose Mayors do the same, and that's also OK? Where are the checks and balances that should have prevented any of this, and why are these politicians not being held accountable for breaking Fed laws?

I haven't made any comments on those subjects. I prefer to keep it based on firearms as is the subject of this thread. I'm sure the mods too would appreciate staying on topic.

 

[bbbass]

Yes, I've read them. Pretty much required reading for one of my degrees along with the lengthy paper written on it.

Your understanding is yours to have, but it does not dictate more then that really. We have laws, checks and balances, and an evolving country that requires contemporary interpretations to fit well into our society and change with how people vote.

You're as ever welcome to your views, but I prefer hard facts along with our reality in the present.

And you're as obnoxious as ever.

But you obviously think you are here to school us peons. And also seem to believe in a "living" constitution?

 

[USAisTheBest]

And you're as obnoxious as ever.

But you obviously think you are here to school us peons. And also seem to believe in a "living" constitution?

Ok, kiddo.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I haven't made any comments on those subjects. I prefer to keep it based on firearms as is the subject of this thread. I'm sure the mods too would appreciate staying on topic.

AH, but it is on topic, the topic IS about the States making rights where NONE exist!

 

[USAisTheBest]

AH, but it is on topic, the topic IS about the States making rights where NONE exist!

No, it's about voting on laws/rights that the federal government isn't specifically given by the Constitution.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Wow, you just don't get it, wave at us Peeons as you canter on by on your high horse, no use having a discussion with you, if all you do is call us all out as unwashed rabble! See Ya!

 

[bbbass]

You got it!
Let's all back the truck up here for a min and have a look at the first lines of the BOR, that spells it out EXACTLY as it IS intended to be used! LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BESTOWED BY OUR CREATOR!
No where does it say "God"!
The 2nd dosnt ask permission, Ever, and concealed carry IS and should always be considered a 2nd right, BESTOWED by the creator! I don't want, or need a state preempting this RIGHT, and further more, most states are more specific in their interpretation of the National BOR, especially when it comes to the 2nd! What we want is national Constitutional carry, NO PERMIT required, no state or locality Permission slip and fee to excersize a RIGHT!
@USAisTheBest ,your new here, ( And Welcome aboard by the way! ) and that's fine, but the forum has a certain flow in these discussions, and one of the things we work very hard to avoide is flaming on members! I'm not a moderator, but I do caution you to tread softly during the first several weeks until you get a good feel for how things run around here! I recommend taking a deep breath before posting, especially something emotionally charged or derogatory, especially toward well known and highly respected members here!

Now I'm lovin on you just a bit!

 

[Ura-Ki]

 

[USAisTheBest]

Sorry you feel that way, but there is a difference. And that difference matters. As much as we'd like to decide what laws mean and how they are constitutionally being applied there are men and women a lot smarter then both of us combined creating and interpreting those laws. Bye, was nice talking. And honestly I've only met a few of you that feel slighted by my words, I'd never bundle all gun owners into that group. I know many that agree with me and value being educated fully on the subject.

 

[bbbass]

@Kruejl or other moderator - this thread has value in terms of supportive positive firearms legislation and is being derailed by a pissing match. Respectfully, could we move the pissing match to a new thread or simply clean it up have folks slug it out via PM? I'm afraid that if one of the sponsors of this IP reads this they will back away slowly and then run for it.

For a guy with that member name, that is a funny! JK

Sorry man, I don't back down easy and did not throw the first insult. However, I would be happy to duke it out in PM mode. Did not realize I was spoiling the thread. But I get what you are saying... I'm out.