What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Oregon Governor signs anti gun bill into law

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
NRA-ILA | Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Yesterday, Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 719A. Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A will create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.






This is so dangerous and way beyond on liberal asses can even think of or about. They lack critical thinking how unfair this is and how it's a medical way to take the guns when really it's unconstitutional.
They use liberal spun bs, exaggerate the lies so their dumbasses think just what they want them too.

OMG imagine just how safe you all will be now I mean my gawd another murder will never happen again in your state
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,901
Reaction score
9,937
Points
2,040
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
74,811
Reaction score
23,879
Points
2,250
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.
You would justify thought crime legislation.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,591
Reaction score
21,800
Points
2,320
NRA-ILA | Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Yesterday, Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 719A. Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A will create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.






This is so dangerous and way beyond on liberal asses can even think of or about. They lack critical thinking how unfair this is and how it's a medical way to take the guns when really it's unconstitutional.
They use liberal spun bs, exaggerate the lies so their dumbasses think just what they want them too.

OMG imagine just how safe you all will be now I mean my gawd another murder will never happen again in your state

Just another waste of time to tie up the courts.
 

KissMy

Free Breast Exam
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
17,056
Reaction score
3,824
Points
255
Location
In your head
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,208
Points
265
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.
You would justify thought crime legislation.

Ever notice how those that support thought crime legislation want to be the ones making the determination of what someone else is thinking?
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

No they don't because when you think that kind of BS it opens the doors to do it for everything . dip shit.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,208
Points
265
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.

Why don't you quit justifying laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment?
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.


And we would be putting your name out there because whether you know it or not Everybody commits at least 3 felonies a day.

So shall we publicize your name all over the place, or how about your child gets caught ripping off a candy bar shall we spread that private information all ove the fkn world I think not.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,245
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

That seems like a weird demographic to put on the no guns list. A 19 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, her parents freak out, he loses his 2nd amendment rights for life? These catch-all classifications for which people should have their rights taken away are so full of obvious holes that it's ridiculous. That's why laws like this get so much backlash from conservatives. They create ways that innocent people can get fucked out of their rights for no reasonable purpose.
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,146
Points
1,830
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.
No one will be.

If a person's rights can be taken away by nothing more than hearsay evidence then no one is safe
 

The Irish Ram

LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
18,403
Reaction score
6,626
Points
350
Location
diagonally parked in a parallel universe
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

Who gets to decide who goes on the list? The latest infringement is targeting the military. The UN doesn't want that kind of expertise defending our country at home.
The reason the founding fathers added the admonition that THIS right, above all others, is not to be infringed upon was their understanding that a country that can not defend itself is a country ripe for the taking.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,245
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.

I have imagined who could be protected with this law.

I have also considered the potential down side to this bill, which is that it sets precedent for the removal of constitutional rights with no due process.

The infinitesimal mitigating effect that this law will have on gun violence is nowhere near worth the cost of that precedent.

Also, just for future reference, THINKING something through generally involves considering it thoroughly, not just blindly following your empathy compass. You're welcome :)
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
50,408
Reaction score
11,009
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Nothing "anti-gun" in it.

Why don't you try thinking it through. Just for a moment, try to imagine who could be protected with this law.

A person being denied of a Constitutional right without due process is wrong,is it not?
 

KissMy

Free Breast Exam
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
17,056
Reaction score
3,824
Points
255
Location
In your head
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

That seems like a weird demographic to put on the no guns list. A 19 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, her parents freak out, he loses his 2nd amendment rights for life? These catch-all classifications for which people should have their rights taken away are so full of obvious holes that it's ridiculous. That's why laws like this get so much backlash from conservatives. They create ways that innocent people can get fucked out of their rights for no reasonable purpose.

I was saying to publish a list of dangerous people in the same way we do the registered sex offenders list. Dangerous people should not be allowed to drive, have guns, ammo, hazzardous chemicals, explosives, fly, etc. Repubtards are more afraid of sex than armed wackos!
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

That seems like a weird demographic to put on the no guns list. A 19 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, her parents freak out, he loses his 2nd amendment rights for life? These catch-all classifications for which people should have their rights taken away are so full of obvious holes that it's ridiculous. That's why laws like this get so much backlash from conservatives. They create ways that innocent people can get fucked out of their rights for no reasonable purpose.

Exactly and that would allow some bitch from ten years ago to say oh he raped me and just because " SHE SAID SO" the it's truth and buh bye.

What you mention about the 17 and 19 yr there are epidemic cases of this going on where young men are being prosecuted for rape when they were both on board to have sex the G.F. and the BF. He gets a life long record has to register as a sex offender etc.

These dumb fk liberals are loving these laws until it happens to their own kid. They deserve it.
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

That seems like a weird demographic to put on the no guns list. A 19 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, her parents freak out, he loses his 2nd amendment rights for life? These catch-all classifications for which people should have their rights taken away are so full of obvious holes that it's ridiculous. That's why laws like this get so much backlash from conservatives. They create ways that innocent people can get fucked out of their rights for no reasonable purpose.

I was saying to publish a list of dangerous people in the same way we do the registered sex offenders list. Dangerous people should not be allowed to drive, have guns, ammo, hazzardous chemicals, explosives, fly, etc.

A liberal's idea of dangerous goes a long, long way NOBODY"S business should be PUBLIC in the manner you mean it.

Ever stop to think you could be the systems' victim, your kid, your brother , sister, do you want their information made public.

If you want to fix these people giving them a chance to enter society without some leftist liberal bs like that won't ever allow that to happen.
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,666
Points
2,040
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

Who gets to decide who goes on the list? The latest infringement is targeting the military. The UN doesn't want that kind of expertise defending our country at home.
The reason the founding fathers added the admonition that THIS right, above all others, is not to be infringed upon was their understanding that a country that can not defend itself is a country ripe for the taking.


Oh yes the UN is getting to dictate our Constitution something so many clueless sheep have no idea about they think it's all a joke even when you put it in front of them.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,245
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
They need to publicise a list of people who are not supposed to have a gun like the registered sex offenders list.

That seems like a weird demographic to put on the no guns list. A 19 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, her parents freak out, he loses his 2nd amendment rights for life? These catch-all classifications for which people should have their rights taken away are so full of obvious holes that it's ridiculous. That's why laws like this get so much backlash from conservatives. They create ways that innocent people can get fucked out of their rights for no reasonable purpose.

I was saying to publish a list of dangerous people in the same way we do the registered sex offenders list. Dangerous people should not be allowed to drive, have guns, ammo, hazzardous chemicals, explosives, fly, etc.

I get what you're saying. The problem, which you have inadvertently pointed out with your clumsy attempt to identify a demographic who could rightly be placed on that list, is that relying on humans (particularly people with political agendas) to come up with a list of people who should have their rights stripped from them is a virtual guarantee that many people will wind up on that list who don't belong there.

Traditionally, that's the ultimate reason behind the universal application of laws and rights: If you grant someone the power to decide who the law applies to and who it does not, that power WILL be used to fuck people over on a massive scale. Every time.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top