Portland Mayor Sam Adams - Introducing City Anti-Gun Initiatives

[GrpCapMandrake]

What part of "shell not be infringed" do you not understand?

Well I am not sure about "shell not be infringed", but I have heard of shall not be infringed. Tell me something, where is this infringing on your right to own a gun?

Curfew for gang-bangers? Are you in a gang? Are you and your gang breaking the laws that govern the land? If you are breaking the laws than you started the process of forfeiting your rights.

Reporting a lost or stolen firearm. Are you buying guns in sham transactions so you can conveniently "lose" them to the gang members you are supplying them to? I am assuming, as bad as that may be, that the answer to this will be, no.

Requiring you to be safe and ensure your guns are kept out of the hands of young people, assuming the extent is unsupervised young people. I know I am assuming again, but I have to give the benefit of the doubt.

I could go on but I fear it may fall on deaf ears. However you should remember that the ruling from the Supreme Court stated that certain "reasonable" gun control measures such as the ones already enacted by congress were constitutional and not an infringement of your rights. These proposals are no more of an infringement of your rights than the laws currently on the books.

"Shall not be infringed" is not a blank check to forgo all regulation and allow anyone and everyone to buy whatever they want whenever they damn well please.

Mandrake

 

[Dnaltrop]

well written and other arguments aside.

1) Mayors push gun laws to look like they're doing something productive. No "sane" person objects to safety(we're all painted as unsafe right there) . Even though those laws really only affect the average gun-owning citizen who miserably fails in their inherent duty to shoot everyone on sight then hand an AK-47 with a 100 round mag to a 5 year old before taking a nap.

2) You can enact all the laws, guidelines, exclusion zones you want, but without Live bodies in those patrol cars, and enough space in the jails to keep people more than overnight, you do nothing. It's more likely those additional patrols would be far more effective at (gasp) cutting crime, and would aid in helping people maintain their neighborhoods WITHOUT new laws/rules!

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Dnaltrop I could not agree more with the substance of your post. As I even said in an earlier post the majority of what is being proposed would amount to poiltical eye candy.

 

[Siglvr]

Looks like some unexpected opposition is forming.

Adams' gun plan taking fire from all sides

Not too late to email the mayor on this issue.

 

[drew]

Looks like some unexpected opposition is forming.



Not too late to email the mayor on this issue.

One of the first newspaper articles after the OFF came out swinging suggested the civil rights groups would fight this too.

 

[Karma]

"Shall not be infringed" is not a blank check to forgo all regulation and allow anyone and everyone to buy whatever they want whenever they damn well please.

Mandrake

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823

It is my understanding that The Second Amendment was written primarily for the people to keep control of their government, and as a last resort to overthrow their out of control government. Assuming that is the case, would it seem reasonable that our forfathers meant for us to allow our government to dictate what kind of firearm we can own and when we can own it? That doesn't seem consistant with the original intent to me.

It is my thought that as a free person, I should be able to buy whatever I want, whenever I damn well please. What type of firearm I own has no impact on you, or any other person. The time period when I purchase the aformentioned weapon has no impact on you, or any other person. What area of the Constitution permits this interference into my rights?