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.
There is a petition that is circulating to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry inside the arena during the Republican Convention. The Secret Service has said no guns will be allowed and they have the authority to do that. I do not agree with their authority and think their ability to institute such a ban undermines government.
The people with permits have passed very extensive background checks that involve all sorts of government agencies. People with permits have been vetted better than any politician the secret service protects. By banning the firearms the Secret Service is basically stating that government can’t be trusted.
Perhaps they are onto something…
The Secret Service is like the rest of the government. They are not against guns they are against YOU having them. If you are SS or law enforcement (other government people) then they are fine with you carrying a firearm. Who knows, maybe they are worried they will have to work harder and have less time for booze and hookers…
So by now you are confused. If I feel this way then why would I not sign such a petition?
It is quite simple. While I believe in the absolute right to keep and bear arms, meaning that you can carry them as you see fit (assuming you are a law abiding citizen), I also know that this event is a private event and the event organizers are in charge of the security and what takes place there. They have as much right to disallow guns at their private event as law abiding citizens have to carry those guns. But it is their event and they get to make the rules.
Your neighbor has the right to say you can’t carry your firearm on his property as do private businesses across this nation.
If you do not like the rule then don’t go there. Many people with carry permits will not patronize any establishment that does not allow firearms. That is their right and they are free to do so (and it is a position with which I agree). There are plenty of firearm friendly businesses where people can spend their money.
If the Republicans do not want people carrying firearms then that is their right. If you don’t like it don’t go.
I find it strange that the people who claim to be pro Second Amendment would have a problem with law abiding people carrying firearms and perhaps that says a lot right there.
In any event maybe those who have tickets should just not show up. Sell the tickets at a profit (if that is legal) or keep them to prevent others from attending. That will push the numbers down.
The petition will not have an effect since the SS has the final say no matter what but at least the RNC could come out in support of the idea..
In the long run though, it is a private event and those running it can do as they see fit even if they do sound like the anti gun folks on the left…
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.
A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.
With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Cornell Law
Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.
Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:
It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia
Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.
There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.
So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.
People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.
It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.
All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.
Never surrender, never submit.