A State’s Action Certain To Anger Conservatives

[BertramN]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

 

[JBond]

Convicted is the key. No problem.

In some states fellons are allowed to vote after time served. Should the same apply in this case regarding ownership?

 

[gipper]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

Libs are just as likely to dispute States Rights. Both groups contain large numbers of statists.

At any rate, it is long since passed the time to dissolve the American Empire. I hope CA secedes. That might do it.

 

[SavannahMann]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

It is not often that you see a combination of arrogance, stupidity, and condescension in a single post. But you managed it.

What if Georgia decided to pass a law that abolished the need for a Search Warrant if someone with first hand knowledge reported something criminal going on. Would that be States Rights, or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

What if Utah passed a law stating that the only religion that would be allowed, and was mandatory was the Latter Day Saints. Would that be a violation of the First Amendment, or would it be a States Rights issue?

Why is it that guns are the only issue that Liberals believe should be subordinated to States Rights? Why is it that all the other rights are considered individual except guns? What I mean is you have the individual right, anywhere in this nation, and all the territories, to worship as you please. Your right to an attorney is not subject to the whim of some restrictions depending upon what state you are in.

What if Delaware decided to start flogging, and I mean whipping, people convicted of DUI and other similar offenses in the public square? Would that be a violation of cruel and unusual, or just a States right issue?

The right of the people to be secure in their person and papers. How is that different than the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Finally, conservative Women. You seem to be under the impression that the women don’t have guns too. Guess what, they do. You see, one of Sam Colts arguments for the Revolver was the fact it was an equalizer. Your attacker may be bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable in the fighting arts, but with a pistol you could defend yourself. It leveled the playing field. I could spend a lifetime mastering the sword, and with ten minutes of training and a gun, you win.

Why is it that in order to have an open mind, the women have to agree with you? Why can’t people disagree? I know, you are still smarting over the fact that Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate. She was a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign. I have posted lists before, backed up by links, for all the reasons I voted against the Democrats for the first time in my life. But then again, I was one of those Democrats you hated, because I believed in individual liberty and individual rights, including the Second Amendment.

I did not introduce my wife to guns. She had guns when we met. She did not convert me, we agreed on that subject before we ever met. I can assure you if I ever tried to harm her, I would be needing some spackleing compound to plug some holes in my sorry ass.

I guess you can go back to being smug.

 

[Keroplatidae]

Excellent logic. How do we go about gun control without calling it gun control? Number one: let's stop using the real words.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy – their advocacy of “states’ rights” in particular.

If states should have the ‘right’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or to compel a woman to give birth against her will, then states should likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, provided such regulations comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence, which the Oregon measure clearly does.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[BertramN]

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy – their advocacy of “states’ rights” in particular.

If states should have the ‘right’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or to compel a woman to give birth against her will, then states should likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, provided such regulations comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence, which the Oregon measure clearly does.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

No, but they want it both ways, and weep and wail when they cannot.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is not often that you see a combination of arrogance, stupidity, and condescension in a single post. But you managed it.

It's more common than you think.

What if Georgia decided to pass a law that abolished the need for a Search Warrant if someone with first hand knowledge reported something criminal going on. Would that be States Rights, or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

What if Utah passed a law stating that the only religion that would be allowed, and was mandatory was the Latter Day Saints. Would that be a violation of the First Amendment, or would it be a States Rights issue?

Why is it that guns are the only issue that Liberals believe should be subordinated to States Rights? Why is it that all the other rights are considered individual except guns? What I mean is you have the individual right, anywhere in this nation, and all the territories, to worship as you please. Your right to an attorney is not subject to the whim of some restrictions depending upon what state you are in.

The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states,and powers belonging to the people. The main point of it is to clarify that the federal government only has those powers that the Constitution says it does; that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people, and that the federal government cannot legitimately claim nor exercise those powers that do not belong to it.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a states'-rights issue. The Second Amendment is clear with regard to whom this power belongs. It does not belong to the federal government, nor does it belong to the states; and neither the federal government nor the states have any legitimate power to interfere with this right.

 

[OKTexas]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

So it only took OR 22 years to catch up to federal law, only the truly ignorant would think this is something new.


.

 

[Correll]

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy – their advocacy of “states’ rights” in particular.

If states should have the ‘right’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or to compel a woman to give birth against her will, then states should likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, provided such regulations comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence, which the Oregon measure clearly does.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Wow. That showed a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and Human Rights.

 

[whitehall]

Is it a trick by left wingers to try to split the conservative base from the republican party or are lefties just plain stupid? There are hundreds of legislative restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and most of them are accepted and legitimate. In NY a person (including Police Officers) who has been accused or convicted of a domestic offense no matter how minor is prevented from owning or carrying a firearm

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.
.

You're opposed to legal marijuana?

 

[BlackSand]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

You still have no idea what a conservative is ...

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Convicted is the key. No problem.

In some states fellons are allowed to vote after time served. Should the same apply in this case regarding ownership?

It's a difference of kind, not degree, JBond.

 

[BluesLegend]

Oregon is a bat shit crazy liberal cesspool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

It is not often that you see a combination of arrogance, stupidity, and condescension in a single post. But you managed it.

What if Georgia decided to pass a law that abolished the need for a Search Warrant if someone with first hand knowledge reported something criminal going on. Would that be States Rights, or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

What if Utah passed a law stating that the only religion that would be allowed, and was mandatory was the Latter Day Saints. Would that be a violation of the First Amendment, or would it be a States Rights issue?

Why is it that guns are the only issue that Liberals believe should be subordinated to States Rights? Why is it that all the other rights are considered individual except guns? What I mean is you have the individual right, anywhere in this nation, and all the territories, to worship as you please. Your right to an attorney is not subject to the whim of some restrictions depending upon what state you are in.

What if Delaware decided to start flogging, and I mean whipping, people convicted of DUI and other similar offenses in the public square? Would that be a violation of cruel and unusual, or just a States right issue?

The right of the people to be secure in their person and papers. How is that different than the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Finally, conservative Women. You seem to be under the impression that the women don’t have guns too. Guess what, they do. You see, one of Sam Colts arguments for the Revolver was the fact it was an equalizer. Your attacker may be bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable in the fighting arts, but with a pistol you could defend yourself. It leveled the playing field. I could spend a lifetime mastering the sword, and with ten minutes of training and a gun, you win.

Why is it that in order to have an open mind, the women have to agree with you? Why can’t people disagree? I know, you are still smarting over the fact that Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate. She was a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign. I have posted lists before, backed up by links, for all the reasons I voted against the Democrats for the first time in my life. But then again, I was one of those Democrats you hated, because I believed in individual liberty and individual rights, including the Second Amendment.

I did not introduce my wife to guns. She had guns when we met. She did not convert me, we agreed on that subject before we ever met. I can assure you if I ever tried to harm her, I would be needing some spackleing compound to plug some holes in my sorry ass.

I guess you can go back to being smug.

"arrogance, stupidity, and condescension" defines all far right writers.

Oregon has the right to pass such laws.

 

[Avatar4321]

As long as due process is involved why would I care about this Oregon law let alone be angry over it?

 

[Avatar4321]

.

The “states’ rights” advocacy by conservatives has always been conditional. Conservatives demand states be free to legislate counter to the federal government, but only when the state legislation promotes the conservative agenda.

The recent bill by the Oregon legislature’s expansion of an existing law, will now prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D) on Monday, March 5th.

Before her signature, the law applied only to married couples. Amending the earlier law closes the “boyfriend loophole.”

This new provision is certain to anger conservatives nationwide. After all, when derogatory words and physical violence fail to bring a woman to heel, use of a firearm is often the only remaining solution open to a husband to regain a woman’s respect and blind obedience.

Now, Oregon has taken away the right to this solution from boyfriends as well.

If this law spreads to other states, and the Conservatives Justices are not sought out or, refuse to reverse what conservatives believe to be a loathsome aberration, conservative women could rise up in rebellion and begin thinking for themselves. This would end these women’s unquestioned support of the GOP and further oppress the victimized conservative male who has suffered so at the hands of blacks, Hispanics, etc.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). The conservatives' mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376893-oregon-becomes-first-state-to-add-new-gun-law-since-parkland-shooting





.

It is not often that you see a combination of arrogance, stupidity, and condescension in a single post. But you managed it.

What if Georgia decided to pass a law that abolished the need for a Search Warrant if someone with first hand knowledge reported something criminal going on. Would that be States Rights, or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

What if Utah passed a law stating that the only religion that would be allowed, and was mandatory was the Latter Day Saints. Would that be a violation of the First Amendment, or would it be a States Rights issue?

Why is it that guns are the only issue that Liberals believe should be subordinated to States Rights? Why is it that all the other rights are considered individual except guns? What I mean is you have the individual right, anywhere in this nation, and all the territories, to worship as you please. Your right to an attorney is not subject to the whim of some restrictions depending upon what state you are in.

What if Delaware decided to start flogging, and I mean whipping, people convicted of DUI and other similar offenses in the public square? Would that be a violation of cruel and unusual, or just a States right issue?

The right of the people to be secure in their person and papers. How is that different than the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Finally, conservative Women. You seem to be under the impression that the women don’t have guns too. Guess what, they do. You see, one of Sam Colts arguments for the Revolver was the fact it was an equalizer. Your attacker may be bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable in the fighting arts, but with a pistol you could defend yourself. It leveled the playing field. I could spend a lifetime mastering the sword, and with ten minutes of training and a gun, you win.

Why is it that in order to have an open mind, the women have to agree with you? Why can’t people disagree? I know, you are still smarting over the fact that Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate. She was a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign. I have posted lists before, backed up by links, for all the reasons I voted against the Democrats for the first time in my life. But then again, I was one of those Democrats you hated, because I believed in individual liberty and individual rights, including the Second Amendment.

I did not introduce my wife to guns. She had guns when we met. She did not convert me, we agreed on that subject before we ever met. I can assure you if I ever tried to harm her, I would be needing some spackleing compound to plug some holes in my sorry ass.

I guess you can go back to being smug.

"arrogance, stupidity, and condescension" defines all far right writers.

Oregon has the right to pass such laws.

Has anyone said otherwise?

 

[BlackSand]

"arrogance, stupidity, and condescension" defines all far right writers.

Oregon has the right to pass such laws.

The OP's description of a conservative women makes him look like a knuckle dragging nit-wit ... Which of course has no bearing on Oregon's law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The bill expands an existing law to prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. Until now, the state’s law only applied to married partners, and the new measure closes what was termed the “boyfriend loophole.”’

Instead Of Thoughts And Prayers, Oregon Passes New Gun Safety Law | HuffPost

Again, the Oregon measure is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Designating those convicted of domestic violence or stalking as prohibited persons is appropriate because they have been afforded comprehensive due process.