JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Does ignoring someones obvious meaning because they got a definition wrong and attempting to belittle them with a smart *** reply qualify as stupid also? Or would appropriate terms for that be even more harsh?

Maybe you could look some up for us. :)
 
Does ignoring someones obvious meaning because they got a definition wrong and attempting to belittle them with a smart *** reply qualify as stupid also? Or would appropriate terms for that be even more harsh?

Maybe you could look some up for us. :)

Are you drunk ?
 
Does ignoring someones obvious meaning because they got a definition wrong and attempting to belittle them with a smart *** reply qualify as stupid also? Or would appropriate terms for that be even more harsh?

Maybe you could look some up for us. :)

Is this your example of semantics, rhetoric, or syntax?
 
Oh great the spelling and grammar police have arrived.

I'm sorry if the concepts communicated are incomprehensible to you.
 
Got it signed and forwarded to friends, thanks for the petition.

Can someone please tell me what the big gripe about our weapons is. I mean, if people really cared about other peoples health, wouldn't they ban cigarettes that cause who knows how deaths. What about second hand smoke? Isn't that deadly? How about alcohol? How about all the chemicals in our food causing cancer and if they are really concerned about children, how about banning violent video games and junk food machines in the schools. Are they not aware of childhood obesity?

You're talking free will here. Free will to exercise rights. There are laws that ban smoking in public....because of the health hazards involved to non-smokers, but there are no bans for those who want to smoke in private. There are laws that ban using a car when you're drunk....because of the health hazards to others on the road, but there are no bans for drinking in private or in public drinking places.....unless your drinking turns you into an angry, violent drunk who disturbs the peace or becomes dangerous to others. Regarding the other examples, cancer-causing chemicals in food, violent video games and junk food in school vending machines, I agree with you that they are also a risk to society, but people have free will to make their personal choices about them.

It's funny how we can be so up in arms about some threats to society and indifferent to others. But my impression is that the outcry about these latter examples isn't as strong because they don't have the shock and anger value that drinking and driving tragedies have for example. If the public isn't scared into perceiving an immediate threat, they don't have their lawmakers attack it as one. If you recall though, our country tried to constitutionally ban alcohol altogether with the 18th Amendment, but public demand was so high and determined for it that prohibition was repealed 14 years later. It's sad, but there isn't a public perception of a threat that is alarming enough to people for them to get up in arms about having laws passed to stop the use of cancer causing chemicals in manufactured food (the sweetener in Nutra Sweet is aspartame which is a neurotoxin - we use nutra sweet to kill ants around our house). I imagine the psychological effects of violent video games is still a debate that is stuck between camps of experts of psychology.

Back to the gun question though, I totally think we can make use of how the failed constitutional ban on the free-will with alcohol is no different from any proposed ban on free will with guns. And I also agree with some other posts that I've seen that the connection between the "side effects" of prescription "anti-depressant" drugs and others needs to be put under the spot light at center stage.
 
In my mind, if the hypocrite can attack the second amendment, and get it even considered, then it's just the beginning of seeing the rest of the bill of rights dissolved. She is wrong, period.

The bill of rights is non-negotiable. As long as we keep the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, that government can keep its right to free speech.

"Its right to free speech"???????
 
I just went back and re-read my post...I'm not sure what exactly I was trying to say there...but I fixed it and I think it makes more sense now. We're all allowed to say nonsensical things from time to time, right?
 
While I signed it, it is just a rhetorical statement. Sen Feinstein cannot be tried for any thing that she says or brings up on the floor of the Senate: Article I, Section 6 Clause 1 states: ". . . and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Now, if she actively tries to abuse the constitution outside of the senate, there are possibilities, but probably the only thing that could happen would be "censure" by the Senate. Since the Senate is controlled by Democrats....well....moot point.
 
SIGNED.. However, I think a good number of politicians in this country, especially in Democrat party have qualified as "traitors". Feinstein is an utter disgrace and a threat to the existence of our freedoms. Watch out for a die-hard femin_zi, fascist liberal politician with a queen complex. Back when she was caught carrying a gun with her by media, she claimed that "she needs a gun", but little people like us have no needs, as our lives are not important, like Queen Feinstein.
 
just debate the issue. contact your representatives and tell them how you feel. these petitions are ridiculous and make gun owners look stupid.

No they are not and they don't make gun owners look stupid.

what it does is send a message and is a another outlet to voice our numbers to show that we the people do not agree.

Yes she has the right to say what ever she wants thats the first amendment

however using her power to write a law that extreme against another constitutional right is abuse of power
 
Finally, someone let Mr. "T" (treason) in the door. Goood times. It seems there's a lot of differing opinions about what treason is on this thread. Drew, on post #54, cited Article 3, Section 3 as the definition of treason for the federal Constitution. That provision describes the offenses that qualify as treason, but it does not define what constitutes those offenses.

The two offenses are "levying War" and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". The second offense seems pretty straight forward. It conjures thoughts of Citizens conspiring with known, identified foreign enemies of our country. But some oaths of service make a point of identifying that oath takers must defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Usually a foreign enemy is easy for us to relate to because they're bad guys from somewhere else and we can really get excited about puffing our chests out to stop them. But how do we know what to look for in identifying a domestic enemy? Do they teach that to us in school (NO), even though Oregon "law" (ORS 336.057 & 067) gives them plenty of time to inform us about it (Minimum, mandated 5 years of Constitution class- 8th grade through 12th). I will tie this Constitution class thing back into the treason discussion, but I have to make a few points first so it makes sense.

There's probably plenty of Oregon public school "graduates" on this site, and I invite them to share whether they got even close to that amount of time to soak up Constitutional principles. Keep in mind, people get doctorate degrees in Constitutional law, so there's undoubtedly lots to learn. And how long does it take to get a degree like that? ....5-6 years right?

So Oregon...."law".... Requires 5 years minimum of Constitution class (since 1923 by the way). That's the "law", and there's case law and an attorney general's opinion to confirm it. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the common experience of most Oregonian "graduates" is that 5 years of Constitution class DOES NOT HAPPEN and "special emphasis" on the Oregon Constitution DOES NOT HAPPEN and "special emphasis" on "obedience to the law" DOES NOT HAPPEN.

This state of affairs is the product of curriculum "policy"...."policy" that is adopted by executive branch people who are qualified because of their training and knowledge of education curriculum "laws". Which means they are presumed to know what the legislature intended with ORS 336.057 & 067, but are still adopting "policy" that, in classroom practice, suppresses the plainly-worded legislative intent of those laws. Which means their actions appear to demonstrate an intent to oppose the purpose of those laws.

So what does "levying War" mean? The standard law dictionary used by the legal profession is Black's Law Dictionary. The current edition is the 9th edition. The expression "levying War" isn't in the 9th edition. Which is funny, because this constitutional term "levying War" was in the 6th and older editions. Those older editions also cite leading case law to support the definition. Below is how "levying War" was defined in those older dictionaries:

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., 1968

"LEVYING WAR. In criminal law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of the action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. Const. art. 3, subsection 3; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75, 2 L.ed. 554

The words include forcible opposition, as the result of a combination of individuals, to the execution of any public law of the United States; and to constitute treason within the Federal Constitution, there must be a combination of individuals united for the common purpose of forcibly preventing the execution of some public law and the actual or threatened use of force by the combination to prevent its execution. Kegerreis v. Van Zile, 167 N.Y.S. 874, 876, 180 App. Div. 414."

And State-level "treason" acts are accounted for by State-level provisions, see Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 24 and ORS 166.005

So if "levying War" (TREASON) is the coming together of individuals to forcibly prevent the execution of public law (through threat or actual force), keeping in mind that the "force of law" only exists through those who administer it or en"force" it, we Citizens have to ask ourselves if treason is possibly more commonplace than we like to think, through the disarming, legal camouflage of the word "policy".

If, through non-enforcement of the legislative intent of 336.057 & 067, we young impressionable Citizens don't get a meaningful education on the Constitution(s) or laws in high school, how do we know for sure if the work product of our legislators is being carried out according to THEIR intent, as opposed to the intent of those who develop and adopt "policy" through various State departments and agencies?
 
Done. Every forum member should take the few minutes it takes to create an account so they can view and sign this and other petitions. It's fine for us all to blather at one another about our views on these subjects, but we're preaching to ourselves.

It's important to use the media tools that they will actually see -- take a few minutes and DO IT!!!
 
And while you are at it sign the other petitions like
(Not INFRINGE upon 2nd Amendment rights by instituting any new form of firearms ban, legislation, or regulation.) and others. Time we all come together and speak out!
 
anyone else go through the open petitions?
Most of them are ridiculous. I think it's just another B.S. way for "our" govt to hold up the mirage of the prople having a voice.
The govt is the biggest scam. They have all the power to scam americans out of money. This country is going doen a bad road to financial bankruptcy, insecurity, and moral debauchery. And all because the so called leaders of this country, supreme court justices, congress, senate, president, and all the B.S. Govt agencies in the midDle. Why are they not in jail? They are commiting treason on a daily basis.

It's a joke. All on us.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top