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.
Jan 28, 2016 Commentary
For nearly a month a group of people describing themselves as militia have been occupying a federal wildlife refuge in protest of the federal government’s intrusion. The feds have obtained a lot of land in violation of the US Constitution and they have been putting ranchers out of business and obtaining their land along the way.
We can debate the tactics of the people and the sanity of this mission some other time. What is not open to debate is their adherence to non violence. They stated they would not shoot first but that they would not tolerate federal agents pointing guns at them. Their position was likely exploited and allowed the FBI to kill LaVoy Finicum. Many claim that Finicum did not shoot (in fact it has been reported that the only three shots came from law enforcement) and that he had his hands up when he approached the police.
I was obviously not there but if he intended to shoot someone I am sure he would have gotten a few rounds off and possibly harmed one of the LEOs before he was shot. He was not a threat to anyone’s life so why was lethal force used?
These officers had many more people, pepper spray and tazers. They did not have to shoot this guy, at least based on what we know at this time.
You can bet that no officer will face any discipline or investigation for this shooting, a shooting that looks like cold blooded murder.
Even if Finicum was charging at the police he did less to them than Michael Brown did (he assaulted an officer and then charged him and tried to take his gun) so why are there no protests? Why are there no hands up don’t shoot rallies and why are there no people telling us that cowboy lives matter?
Obama was on Brown’s side as was the majority of the liberal establishment. The very people who think Brown was executed think Finicum got what he deserved.
Did he? There is no way to convince me he could not have been taken alive. A trigger happy LEO murdered him.
The government can kill without consequence. We see it each and every day.
I do not know what the response to this will be but if this man was walking with his hands up and was unarmed and they shot him then the reaction should make Ferguson look like Disneyland.
Perhaps people should burn places to the ground and engage in huge riots that destroy millions of dollars in property. I mean, that is what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore and the subjects of those outbursts were in the wrong. If they murdered this guy (and it sure looks that way) then it might just be time to raise hell. There is no honor in the FBI and there is no honor in any police agency that violates its oath.
Perhaps this will spiral out of control or perhaps it will be forgotten in the next news cycle.
In any event, if you ever have to deal with the FBI or other law enforcement agencies just keep in mind they will murder you. Do what you have to to stay alive keeping in mind surrendering or complying is no guarantee you will remain alive.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 2, 2015 Second Amendment
Barack Obama is obsessed with controlling the American people. He started his quest for control by ramming Obamacare down our throats. If government controls the health care it gains a lot of control over the people.
This is true about gun control as well. When governments control guns they control people and often that control results in the systematic murder of millions of them.
I don’t think our government wants to murder millions of us (yet anyway) but I am willing to bet that the millions across the globe who died at the hands of their government after being disarmed did not think their governments would murder them.
Do I think our government has the ability? Absolutely. All governments are necessary evils that eventually get too big and too controlling. Our government is too big and too controlling and it wants to grow larger and to gain more control.
The best way to do that is to remove the means of the people to resist and that means disarming them. Obama is not stupid. He knows that there are more people with guns in the woods on the first day of hunting season than there are in all of our armed forces combined. He probably also has a good idea that a large number of people in the military would not fight the people but would instead turn and fight a tyrannical government.
This latest shooting at a college in Oregon is a tragedy and the details are not yet fully known. There are reports that have been sourced to a number of witnesses that the shooter (who I refuse to name so as not to give the bastard any notoriety) asked the religion of the victims and those who answered that they were Christian were shot. There are also reports that the shooter was a Muslim but that has not been verified. If he is then perhaps we should be looking at banning them instead of guns…
As this tragedy unfolded Obama did what he has done during all other tragedies. He went on TV and gave a speech blaming the gun for the murders and then called for more gun control. This time Obama made no bones about the fact he was politicizing the issue and he called for more gun control as he has done in the past. He went so far as to say that he knows the memos are being written saying we need more guns and then he asked if anyone actually believes that.
Let me help you out. Yes Barack, we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (The truth is more guns does mean less crime). I know you think that the number of guns in America is to blame for this and other tragedies and that if there were no (or fewer) guns then this would not have happened. Well guess what Barack? There were NO guns at that college. It was a gun free zone. Even the security guard did not have a gun. The only person with a gun was the murderer who knew he would meet no resistance. He disobeyed the law and murdered people. It is against the law to take a gun to a gun free place and it is against the law to murder people but this jackass did just that.
Tell me Barack, how would any other gun control law have prevented this moron from doing what he did? A total ban on firearms would not have prevented this tragedy. Just ask the good folks in Australia where guns were outlawed and confiscated years ago. That country just suffered a double shooting (one was the shooter) near a police station.
How did that criminal get a gun Barack?
Criminals don’t obey the law. One needs only to look at you and Hillary Clinton to know that. She broke countless laws with her email server and you have broken the law time and again. You bypass Congress, you subvert the Constitution and YOU, yes you illegally sent firearms to drug cartels in Mexico. Laws have not stopped you so why do you think they would stop anyone else?
To get back to if anyone thinks more guns is the answer I will say this. I am willing to bet the victims at the college were not thinking about gun control as they were being shot. I bet many of them were thinking “I wish I had a gun right now.” A veteran of the armed forces and a person who is more of a man than you will ever be rushed the shooter and suffered a number of gunshot wounds so that he could save others (fortunately he survived). Imagine Barack, if he had been carrying a firearm (meaning there would be at least one MORE gun on campus). Surely you don’t think a veteran carrying a firearm is a danger to others now do you? I don’t think ANY law abiding citizen is a threat to others just because he is carrying a firearm. In fact, I feel safer around them.
Yes Barack, more guns would have made every person at that college safer except for the shooter who would have been vastly outnumbered and not long for this world and dare I say with a lot less loss of life.
I know you want to blame the gun so you can push an agenda. But Barack, we will not let that happen. We are on to you and your elitist toadies. We know you want to disarm us so you can control us. I know you all do not hate firearms. You just hate the American citizens HAVING them. You have no issue with your guards having firearms. You have no issue with police officers and your special liberal friends having and carrying them. You just do not want the people to have them because then you can’t control them and that eats at you.
A dentist shoots a lion and those upset by it blamed the dentist, not the gun. Muslims blow stuff up and behead people and you tell us not to judge all of them by the actions of a few (in other words don’t blame all Muslims), and when someone drives drunk we do not blame alcohol or cars we blame the drunk driver.
But when it comes to guns you ALWAYS blame the gun.
Here is a clue for you Barack. A firearm is an inanimate object that has no feelings, it cannot think, it cannot feel, it cannot hate and it cannot do anything wrong. It is merely an inanimate object that requires a person to operate. The person is the one who can have all those qualities the firearm simply cannot have. Blaming the firearm for the murder is like blaming cutlery for obesity, it makes no logical sense. Then again, liberalism is not logical.
Barack, it is time you left the firearms alone and started focusing on the nuts (mostly people who follow your ideology) using firearms to commit these horrific crimes. It is time you realized that more guns in the hands of the law abiding will make us safer as has been demonstrated countless times. No one can argue that more guns in the hands of those students would likely have made a huge difference and people would have been safer. You see, the shooter probably would not have attacked because he would know people might be armed.
Shooters like this guy are cowards who attack the defenseless (much like you and your party and its cowardly attacks on the defenseless unborn) and they look for places where guns are not allowed.
Barack, you have never heard of a mass shooting at a gun show, now have you? No shooter would risk it. I might add that if the guns were the problem as you claim then no one at the the gun show would make it out alive.
Barack, leave our guns alone. I know you have been having a tough time with Putin kicking your ass around like a soccer ball but you really need to turn your attention to something other than gun control because you will never win that battle.
You see Barack, when this nation was under British rule they tried to take our firearms and we declared our independence and then kicked their asses out. You might recognize this on the Fourth of July when we celebrate it.
Well I am here to tell you that if you keep it up you might find out what King George did so very long ago.
And pal, we have plenty of days left on the calendar for another holiday.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 12, 2013 Obamacare
Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon said that Barack Obama was grossly misleading on Obamacare according to an article at the Weekly Standard. He further stated that Obama was very misleading on the claim that you could keep your plan if you like it.
Schrader voted for Obamacare and he supports it. He makes it clear that he thinks the problems with the roll out will be fixed and that those problems will be way in the past.
I think he means that they will be in the past when Election Day comes next year. Many Democrats are hoping that Obamacare can get its feet on solid ground and the problems lessened or solved early on so that they have plenty of time to recover before the 2014 election. You see, the reality is that they do not care how it affects people they only care how it affects their ability to remain in office.
Conservatives warned that these problems would happen. There were plenty of warnings that Obama was not telling the truth about keeping plans. There were plenty of warnings that the plans under Obamacare would cost a lot more than plans people already had. There were plenty of warnings but Obama and his toadies said Republicans were trying to scare people.
Many conservative radio and TV hosts warned that these things would happen.
Now you know why Obama told people they should not listen to talk radio or watch FOX News. If they had they would have been informed about what was taking place.
And let’s face it, the last thing a Democrat/Socialist/Progressive needs is an informed electorate.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 30, 2008 Political
The state of Oregon is looking at using GPS systems to track the number of miles people drive and then tax them accordingly. Those who are taxed by the mile will have their gasoline taxes rebated at the pump, or so says the Governor of the state.
Privacy advocates worry that the system will be used to track people though the government says it cannot and will not do that. However, if it involves a GPS then they can track people so the capability is there. Will they? One can most assuredly believe they will the first time a child is abducted or some other emergency exists. They will justify their acts based on public safety or “its for the children.”
The move is designed to improve revenue for the roads (though they never use the taxes for that exclusively). Revenue is down since people are driving fewer miles and using fuel efficient vehicles, what they wanted us to do in the first place. Now they want to tax per mile which means it will be easier for them to generate revenue by simply increasing the amount per mile drivers are taxed. There is no word on how the state will handle vehicles that drive primarily on roads that are not maintained by the state such as roads on private property.
I think this is a bad idea and it will lead to invasion of privacy. It will also lead to people paying more in taxes. I would not be surprised if people who are mobile move out of the state to avoid it.
Put Down That Sugary Drink
In New York, Governor Paterson has proposed 88 new taxes in an effort to shrink the state’s growing deficit. Seems to me that cutting waste would be the first step but Paterson is a Democrat and they never met a tax they didn’t hike.
One of the most controversial taxes is the tax that will be levied on sugary drinks like non diet colas. The state is using its power to levy taxes in order to force behavior on people. This will only lead to people going to other states to buy sugary drinks. Look at how they already avoid paying taxes on tobacco. Pretty soon, the Indian reservations will be selling mail order cola.
The interesting thing is that they want to curb obesity by taxing sugary drinks when artificial sweeteners have been linked to obesity. The artificial sweeteners might actually cause the body to crave more sugar leading to people eating more.
Regardless, this is a bad idea. First of all it is not the state’s job to decide what people should or should not drink or eat. This is an individual choice and if people become obese then that is their concern. The fact of the matter is everyone is going to die and depriving people of what they enjoy (or taxing it so they cannot afford it) only delays the inevitable. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal condition.
The state claims that people’s health is its only concern but the fact is the state wants to make money and taxing sugary drinks is how they are going about it. I can guarantee that if everyone decided to stop drinking sugary beverages and stuck to diet drinks, water or milk then the state would either tax them or find something else to tax. The state will find a way to increase revenue when the flow of money slows or stops because of behavior they wanted. See above about Oregon.
When will this insanity end? What next? Will they tax red meat or fatty foods because they increase the risk for high blood pressure and heart disease? Will they tax people with emphysema (or other COPDs) more because they use oxygen less efficiently?
This is a slippery slope because once this camel gets its nose under the tent there will be no stopping it. Government can decide what it thinks is healthy and what it thinks is not and increase taxes according to its own arbitrary standards all in the name of looking out for the people and their health.
It is not government’s job to decide for us how we manage our health. This is a matter of personal responsibility (something government knows nothing about) and it is up to each person to decide what is best.
Taxes are nothing more than a form of involuntary servitude where the fruits of our labor are confiscated. We work and our money is taken but we have little say in how it is spent, spending that usually involves a huge amount of waste.
I propose a fathead tax. Then people like Paterson would be required to pay more in taxes.
Come to think of it, so would all politicians.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.