Several counties in Oregon have passed their own regulations regarding firearms and those regulations are in reaction to the gun control laws Oregon passed (Oregon Firearms Safety Act). The counties are basically saying they will not comply with state law and that they will do things their own way.
The state has supremacy in this issue and it will get dicey but the counties are saying they are Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties. They point out the state is a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants and if the state can ignore the law and be a sanctuary for that issue then the counties can ignore the state law and be sanctuary for firearms owners.
This seems perfectly reasonable to me and I can’t see how a state that ignores the law can be upset that a county has ignored a law. I do understand that liberals think they are the only ones who can ignore the law and that laws only apply to the other guy but that is just their senility showing.
If we are forced to accept that it is legal to have a sanctuary city or state for illegal immigrants then we must accept that sanctuary can be granted by any city or state (or county) for any reason.
In Oregon the liberals want to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens in violation of the Constitution and federal law. The counties want to provide sanctuary for firearms owners IN ACCORDANCE with the Constitution. Funny how following the Constitution is alien to liberals. They sure try to use the Constitution when they want to make their case though. Does anyone see the irony of this statement coming from a sanctuary state?
These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law – which gun advocates see as unconstitutional. KTVZ
The concern of the liberals in Oregon, who obviously do not understand the Constitution or firearms, is that people get hurt with guns. The largest number of people harmed with firearms is those who commit suicide. The linked article makes it clear that suicides account for the largest number of gun related deaths in Oregon.
The state is worried that someone might buy a gun and use it to kill himself. If a person decided to do that then he only harmed one person (physically) and that would be himself. If any person can’t get a gun then another way to commit suicide will be found.
The funny thing is Oregon has a Death with Dignity Act that allows doctor assisted suicide. So if you are terminally ill you can get a doctor to help you off yourself but if you just want to die you can’t shoot yourself. I guess the state does not want you taking money out of the hands of suicide doctors.
In any event, this Oregon case is just another in a long line of hypocrisies liberals are known for. Add the sanctuary for illegals but not gun owners up there with abortion is OK but the death penalty is murder.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Never surrender, never submit.
Every time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.
Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.
The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).
Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.
Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.
The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.
It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.
When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.
Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.
When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.
The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.
Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.
I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.
First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.
Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.
The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.
Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.
How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?
The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.
We will not comply.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is the Houdini of drug lords. He manages to escape from prisons that are supposed to be top notch. I imagine with his drug money he pays a lot of people off to make sure he is able but that is another issue for another time (like when the Mexican government starts going after them).
El Chapo recently escaped and was on the run until he did an interview with potential CIA operative Sean Penn and ended up captured. El Chapo is now back in jail waiting to be extradited to the US.
As far as this guy is concerned they should ship him to Gitmo and leave him there until he rots but before they do officials might want to ask him about a particular rifle found at his hideout.
El Chapo had a 50 caliber rifle that he had his men use to try and take down law enforcement helicopters. That rifle came from the United States.
Now before you go all Obama on me and scream that this is why we need more gun control you should know the rifle was part of the Fast and Furious operation. You know, the one where Obama allowed thousands of firearms to be illegally transferred to drug cartels so they could track them. Only problem is the ATF lost track of the firearms. They have turned up at crime scenes and one was used to kill border patrol agent Brian Terry (yes Obama should be tired for being an accomplice to that murder) but all the documents relating to that operation are locked up under the claim of executive privilege (a judge has ruled that Obama must turn the documents over to Congress, make some popcorn folks).
So Obama has a couple of oh crap moments going on. He has to turn over his Fast and Furious documents at the same time one of his firearms was found in the possession of a well-known drug lord.
The news went from El Chapo to Oh Crappo pretty quickly.
Keep in mind that you would go to jail for the kind of strawman purchases (which Obama erroneously blames for most of the gun crime in places like Chicago) Obama is involved in.
Maybe gun control should involve controlling the government and nothing more…
Never surrender, never submit.
Hillary Clinton and the rest of the anti-gun zealots in this nation want the ability to sue gun manufacturers if their products are used in any manner that causes harm. One assumes they mean unlawful harm as I doubt anyone would want a gun manufacturer to be sued for a police officer that shot someone in the performance of his duty.
Regardless what they really want the entire idea is stupid. Firearms are manufactured and sold in this country. So long as the manufacturer provided them legally and they were not in some way defective then that manufacturer should not be held accountable for what the end user does with the product.
This is another overreach by the people who routinely violate the US Constitution. These people are tyrants and they will try everything they can, legal or not, in order to rule over people with an iron fist and they can’t quite do that until they can disarm people and make it tougher for them to get firearms.
How many firearms companies would go out of business if they could be sued because some moron uses a gun illegally and someone gets harmed? How many could stay in business if a legal owner shoots a home invader and the invader’s family sues the firearms company because the product caused harm?
It is moronic to hold the companies responsible in these instances.
The law in place has many provisions that would allow manufacturers to be sued but she [Hillary] wanted the version that allowed lawsuits for improper use of the gun by the end user (Sanders voted against that one and she is attacking him for it). Someone using the product in a manner that harms others SHOULD NEVER BE something a company can be sued for.
For those of you who think this is a good idea let me ask:
- Should Microsoft or Dell be sued if someone uses Microsoft software and a Dell computer to steal identities?
- Should Apple be sued because a person using a cell phone and not paying attention walks off a cliff?
- Should a sports company be sued because a person uses baseball bats to beat the hell out of people?
- Should condom companies be sued because rapists use their condoms when committing rape?
- Should a small appliance company be sued because an idiot used a hair dryer in the tub and died of electrocution?
The obvious answer to these questions is no. The companies did not do anything wrong and the companies did not use its products in a manner that harmed someone. This is just as true for the gun makers.
But guns are scary and liberal bed wetters do not like them so they have to have ways to do it. They don’t like guns so they want to sue the people who make them rather than go after the people who use them illegally.
This is the liberal mind set. It is never the fault of the person who did it. There must be some reason and the blame game begins. No matter what problems people have in life liberals will always find someone or something to blame for those problems. Look at any person in Baltimore picked up for a violent crime and that person has a record a mile long for other violent or gun related crimes (along with drugs) and the joker is still on the street. The problem is not some other thing, the problem is the person who did it and a liberal justice system that refuses to punish offenders.
But I am latching onto Hillary’s idea here. I think we should be allowed to sue politicians who enact laws and make decisions that harm the public. We should be able to sue the hell out of any politician who does anything that violates the Constitution.
Then we might get some reform in this country.
As for Hillary and suing gun makers, a stupid idea from a stupid person and makes as much sense as Monica suing the cigar company for the harm done to her…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 4, 2016 Second Amendment
All tyrants do…
It is not hard to figure Barack Obama out. He was a drug using spoiled brat kid raised by Marxists and Communists who has grown into an adult who thinks he knows everything and that what he wants done is best for all. He also thinks that the Constitution and the laws do not apply to him and that he can ignore them as he sees fit.
This is evident in the actions he has taken. I will not list them for you. Suffice it to say any time he has used his pen and his phone or issued some executive action he was usurping his authority.
Obama met with Attorney General Lynch today and he then told reporters he has some actions he will take in the coming days. You know that they will infringe on our rights and be illegal by the way he described it.
He said the actions he is taking are completely within his legal authority. Anytime Obama says that he is trying to convince the dunderheads who support him that what he is doing is legal. IT IS NOT. He said that about a few things and the courts have told him otherwise. Remember, Obama told us he had the legal authority with regard to his immigration plans but a court told him otherwise. Of course that did not stop Obama the Tyrant as he ignored the courts.
He also said that a majority of people agree with him.
This is a lie. Congress took this issue up several times and the members of Congress decided against this based on what constituents were saying. People do not agree with Obama on this mess. People do not agree at all.
But, if that is the standard we now use then why is Obamacare the law? A huge majority of people were opposed to it when Obama and the Democrats were debating it and when they passed it. If Barack Obama actually cared about what the people wanted he would have scrapped Obamacare.
He did not because that is what he wanted. This is the same for his gun control measures. He wants this so he really does not care what the people want. He will tell the world that the majority agrees with him but that is a lie.
Obama lies to get his way and he ignores the Supreme Law of the Land. He bypasses Congress and he does things the way he wants and he really does not care if anyone likes it or if it is legal. It is what his magnificence wants so that is what he will do.
Well Barry, you ignore the law and that is fine with you and your idiot followers. Even Martin O’Malley thinks you did the right thing on this issue and you can’t get more of an idiot following you than O’Malley so let me be clear.
I will not obey any order you impose. I will NOT follow anything you say I have to do. I do not care if you like it because you work for me and I am not obligated to follow unconstitutional laws and since you have no authority to even make law I am certainly not going to follow what your pea brain comes up with.
So go fornicate yourself because we will not comply.
Never surrender, never submit.