JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Sounds like advanced cop or lawyer comunications training. We should probably stop derailing this thread but I have to ask, what was the point to all this? It seems like you wanted a yes or no answer for something thats not as simple as yes or no. I still say yes, it communicates "same arms as the government" it just uses different words.

By your rules, does the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed say the government gets to choose what arms you may bear? Yes or no?

Ill leave it at that, so to get the thread back on track
None of this is germane to my original question so why are you asking this?

Why not simply answer MY question?
I answered your question with the no you wanted. Are you going to answer mine?
 
Last Edited:
The US Constitution and English Common Law operates under the principle of if it is not proscribed/prohibited, it is allowable.
Ergo, if it is not banned; then it is legal and okay

Edit. This is in stark contrast with many "post modernist theory of governance" in which the principle is basically if it is not permitted, it is not allowable.
 
There are no limits placed upon the 2nd expressly for the reason that they wanted it completely open to any and all technology available in types and capacities and capabilities! The 2nd does not even express any one type, make, or model of weapon, nor does it confer any limits! It says ARMS, not Guns, not Cannon, not Man-O-War, nothing, ARMS! You can read into that all you want, but the simple statement of ARMS speaks more then a thousand words! Shall Not Be Infringed means that the the government has no power to change, alter, restrict, or deny any of the 2nd!
Class dismissed!
 
On topic, and I apologize if this has been covered because I have not read all the replies, but this isn't a left VS right issue. This is an unfortunate accident and a horrible response by someone so consumed by hate, they are blind to the tragedy at hand. I don't feel it is indicative of how the majority of the "left" would react, or even how this individual would respond if they gave it some actual thought. Sometimes we get so caught up in politics, we seem to forget we are all humans trying to survive the best we can. Regardless of opinion about any topic, there is no need to forego kindness to our fellow man. Even a drugged up intruder breaking into my house, whom I will deal with in any way to protect my family, is still a person. They still were a young child once. They had a family that loved them. They had hopes and dreams. They had in them the power for greatness, but ended up down a different path. All too often we devolve to defensive behavior, finger pointing, and name calling. The human race is doomed if we can't learn to live together better than that.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of the deceased and I hope that Lana does some soul searching and corrects the error of her ways.
While several of my friends and relatives consider themselves Democrats, unfortunately there are many, many people, including prominent government officials who do act just like this lady did. I've witnessed it first hand more than once and I'm fed up with it. It's getting out of hand and it's going to end badly.
 
Juxtaposed with all the shenanigans the left gets away with, a fella burned a rainbow flag this December and got sentenced to 15 years..

For the record, I believe that Iowa dude shouldn't have done that and that people have a right to live their lives the way they choose without bubblegums like him getting in their way. But 15 years?

Compare:


Disparate sentencing like this causes people to lose faith in the legal system.
 
My uncle had a horse shot out from under him years ago in Montana by a old man that was elk hunting.
Just shot at the movement in the woods.
Killing my uncle's horse.
Just missed his leg and lung shot the horse.

Shooting at movement, even if it is an animal, is unethical. First you apply the four rules and then you shoot for a spot that is going to be rapidly fatal. To just shoot an animal in the rump or gut because branch moved is not only stupid and dangerous (as the poor dad and girl killed demonstrate), it's flat immoral even if it is a deer.
 
Yes, I am well educated in 'plain english' however I do NOT see 'the same arms as the government'
In this 'plain english' statement.

Am I right or wrong? Is it there or not? This is a yes or no question.

Letter of Marque: Letter of marque - Wikipedia

The US Constitution allows congress to grant Letters of Marque to people who own private battleships (in essence): U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Although the last time this was done was in 1815: Letter of marque | The Age of Pirates

Many such letters were granted during the war of 1812. We eventually built a navy and Letters of Marque, being so profitable to all concerned, apparently made it hard to man the navy.

But in any event, the idea that private citizens could have the most awesome weapons of the day is built into the Constitution.
 
EPS said:


The restaurant is in a area of Seattle that they will be supportive of them.
Whole bunch of people in that area with T.D.S.
Trump derangement syndrome.


Is it promoted with needles and poo on the sidewalk in front

more poo for you Lana kiossovski /St. John's Bar and Eatery. In fact does any one know where I can rent a full septic tank pumper truck? I got a delivery to make.

~
 
What shocks me more is how drunk someone has to be to mistake a Dad and a 9yo girl for a deer...

Right? I was thinking the same thing. Drunk or just STUPID?

I have never understood those that will shoot at the first thing that moves.
 
Last Edited:
I feel like I'm reading 4 unrelated merged threads.

Gawd, no kidding. What a fustercluck, and not like NWFA! :(

I was just going to say I'm I in the right thread.
Anyway like I posted .
It appears they were shot with one shot both where hit with buckshot in the chest.
They were in a deer drive.
I would like to know if they had a hunting orange vest or something on .
Or where they just camo clothes and driving deer .

Not all states have a hunter orange law. OUR nanny state of Oregon doesn't.:confused:
I don't get it. You know? If it "Saves Just One Life!" or "It's For The Children!" Yet year after year, they ignore the fact, hunter orange saves lives.
 
Drunk or just STUPID?
Drunk is a real possibility.

Stupid (or simply careless) is another.

In my lifetime of hunting I have seen both and I doubt it's going to change anytime soon.

The only thing that may impact it is the reality of fewer hunter numbers in the woods. I remember the days (pre lottery) when it sounded like a war zone in the woods. I was always surprised there were not more injuries or deaths because of it.

I can honestly say I have sacrificed shots because I was not 100% certain of safety and/or it was in fact an animal. Heck I once relaxed my bow draw on a very clear shot at a deer about 15 yards away and only because my friend who I was hunting with was about 45 degrees off to my right and ahead of me. I was clearly 'on' the deer and could see my friend but while he was off to my right he was still ahead of me so I backed off the shot.
 
The only thing that may impact it is the reality of fewer hunter numbers in the woods. I remember the days (pre lottery) when it sounded like a war zone in the woods. I was always surprised there were not more injuries or deaths because of it.

I never hunted, (I went with a buddy once as a non hunter) I remember you could look up at the mountains with binoculars on opening day and see red dots all over. Hunting was huge in Utah. They'd close schools on Friday even. And even way back then they had the common sense to make hunter orange the law.
 
I just went a did some research.
This happened in the area where I go in South Carolina.
My friend lives just out side of Walterburo .
South Carolina.
I go there every other year to fish and hunt.

Better take you strobe light headgear!


It says they were killed by buck shot .
In a deer drive .

Good sound shot!!

Since the range of buckshot is limited, and both were killed with pellets from one shot, I'm going to think they were pretty close to the "hunter". The most likely scenario, and knowing a thing about Carolina woods, is that it was a drive thru denser thicket/undergrowth. In which case, a sudden shot would be more expected.


I think all NBC weapons should be banned

Nuclear weapons have kept the world from a World War III since their first use... without them, we'd still be hurling troops, planes, and ships at each other. Nuclear deterence works. MAD works.



Yah yah yah, after 167 posts you expect everyone to still have something germaine to say. LOL. Personally, I enjoy a bit of topic drift into delightful side discussion and interesting departures. :p:D:D

I was just going to say I'm I in the right thread.
Anyway like I posted .
It appears they were shot with one shot both where hit with buckshot in the chest.
They were in a deer drive.
I would like to know if they had a hunting orange vest or something on .
Or where they just camo clothes and driving deer .

Good question. Although orange does not prevent all hunting misadventures.


What shocks me more is how drunk someone has to be to mistake a Dad and a 9yo girl for a deer...

I've seen hunters drink. But I doubt is was misidentification, but rather a quick instinct shot. Here in NE OR forest, we constantly have hunters claiming they saw some movement and took a shot, or more often, and more disgustingly, got a good "sound shot". I hate that crap!! GTFO of my woods!!! I can see where hunting in places where the cover is so tight or state regs require shotguns that those types of incidents might be more prevalent.


Not all states have a hunter orange law. OUR nanny state of Oregon doesn't.:confused:
I don't get it. You know? If it "Saves Just One Life!" or "It's For The Children!" Yet year after year, they ignore the fact, hunter orange saves lives.

I have friends that swear that wearing orange makes a hunter MORE vulnerable! They won't wear it, period. We have fairly open countryside on this side and I got real tired of being "scoped" by some azzhole on the other side of a clearing or hill. "Scoped" means that instead of carrying binos or a mono, the hunter raises his rifle to get a better look at someone they see.... often accompanied by yelling to get off "their" hill, out of their meadow, or out of their spot. Some hunters I know have reported their kill being taken from them by shots fired to scare them away. I even stopped hunting for awhile because I was sick of it after my friend, the Union County Sheriff, had his elk taken at gunpoint. So no, I don't wear much orange. I want to be seen less, not more. I'll take my chances with the orange ballcap or watchcap that I wear and remove if I see somebody or hear them driving on a nearby road... I prefer hiding from them!
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top