A State’s Action Certain To Anger Conservatives

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

 

[Defiant1]

So you just kick the ***** out and keep your guns.

 

[BlackSand]

‘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.

If the object is to ban firearms from people convicted of domestic violence or stalking ...
Why is it necessary to identify them as married, unmarried, partners, pets, neighbors, loved ones, arch enemies or best friends ...

.

 

[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





.

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.

And ignorance is all you left wing extremist have going for you, this has been federal law since 1996 and the passage of the Lautenberg amendment. OR is just show boating, maybe they should be actually inputing this data in the NICS database. Now feel free to rate this post funny as well.


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Whether you have an issue with the law or not isn’t the point.

The fact is that far too many of your fellow conservatives are Second Amendment ‘absolutists,’ those who oppose any and all firearm regulatory measures.

This lie propagated by the NRA is an example:

“House Bill 4145 would expand the class of persons in Oregon that could be prohibited from possessing firearms. This legislation would add the misdemeanor of stalking to the list of offenses that would result in the removal of Second Amendment rights…”

NRA-ILA | Oregon: Bill Expanding Firearm Prohibitions to be Heard

Again, this is a lie – no Second Amendment rights are being ‘removed’; indeed, rights can’t be ‘removed,’ they can only be limited and restricted consistent with Constitutional case law.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of measures such as the Oregon law, consequently no Second Amendment rights have been ‘violated,’ no Second Amendment rights ‘removed.’

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Yet, Democrats demand the right to have it both ways. They DEMAND that driver's licenses be honored in all states if issued by one state. They demand that Concealed Carry licenses be ignored by states even when issued by one state. Democrats have supported "nullification" since this country was founded. In the early 1800's, they demanded the right to nullify tariffs and federal laws concerning slavery and now they are demanding the right to nullify laws about marijuana. Look to your own hypocrisy before criticizing others.

 

[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.

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

Oregon has the right to pass such laws.

Why can’t Georgia pass a law prohibiting Gay Marriage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you just kick the ***** out and keep your guns.

Nope, you have to petition to get them back. Try it, and tell us how that works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why can’t Georgia pass a law prohibiting Gay Marriage?

Fallacy of false equivalency. One is based on danger to the group by the individual, the other is a protected right.

You really need to take a course on the Constitution and let go of your anger.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Every single one of them is illegitimate and blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what contortions various pats of government go through to usurp the power to infringe a right that the Constitution explicitly forbids from being infringed. “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It couldn't have been written any more clearly than it was. The right affirmed therein belongs to the people, not to any level of government, and government is forbidden from even touching the edge of that right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oregon has the right to pass such laws.

No state in this nation has the right to enact or enforce laws that violate the Constitution.

The Constitution is this nation's highest law.

Criminals do not obey the law; that is what makes them criminals.

 

[eagle7_31]

.

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





.

The same can be said of leftists when it comes to immigration. Take a look at California for starters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The right of The People is not infringed: it is a collective right. Individuals can do things that make them unworthy of that right. Rights are not absolute at the individual level. Go be a criminal, Bob, and see what happens to your right to have a gun. End of story.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why can’t Georgia pass a law prohibiting Gay Marriage?

Fallacy of false equivalency. One is based on danger to the group by the individual, the other is a protected right.

You really need to take a course on the Constitution and let go of your anger.

Ah so other rights are individual. Why is the Second not an individual right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why can’t Georgia pass a law prohibiting Gay Marriage?

Fallacy of false equivalency. One is based on danger to the group by the individual, the other is a protected right. You really need to take a course on the Constitution and let go of your anger.

Ah so other rights are individual. Why is the Second not an individual right?

You make up comparisons that are not made.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, this is a lie – no Second Amendment rights are being ‘removed’; indeed, rights can’t be ‘removed,’ they can only be limited and restricted consistent with Constitutional case law.

If you legislate somebody or some people cannot possess a firearm, you are removing their constitutional right.