RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
GoDawgs's comments:
on Unpacking Heat
No, actually the silence of the court is important. Cases have come up to the Appelate courts and the USSC has let the lower courts ruling stand. Also, the USSC has 'judicial review' (Marbury v Maddison).
Correct in refering to the GFZ act that was ruled unconstitutional.
Correct that for the most part the states have been left to decide their own laws concerning guns.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
actualy the constitoution says what ever it wants. The supreme court interprets the constitution for us (represenative democracy and all) so the wording of it and the specific wording doesn't realy matter what matters is how the court interprets it. Currently the court says that the 2nd amendment DOES cofer an individual right independent of the militia. So stop this pointless argument. If you don't like the court composition then vote to change it through your choice of reps and president.
igot it — Sat April 3rd 8:09a.m.
No. Not currently....always, since 1791 the Court (by being silent), the Congress (USC Tiltle 10) and the Executive (numerous quotes from Washington, Jefferson all the way to present, including Obama) ALL have restated this natural and Constitutional right. Therefore, the only way to alter it constitutionaly is via an Amendment to the constitution.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
And those that carry who are black? Those that carry with a college degree? Those that carry that are gay?
Intimidate criminals? Yes. To the rest of our civilized society, I am polite, professional, courteous and kind. Have you been the victim of crime?
And now Dino, you wish harm upon other's children? Perhaps an inner look into your being is needed.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
The Constitution only reaffirms the Rights of Man, natural rights given to us by our creator. Read the whole constitution including the 9th and 10th Amendment, read the Federalist Papers.
-------------------------------
It is quite obvious that the 2nd Amemdment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. It does not specifiy a right for individual citizens.
Engard — Fri April 2nd 10:24a.m.
No, you are wrong. US Code 18 defines the 'militia' as all able bodied males from the age 18 to 45. The National Guard and the Reserves did not exist in 1791. Move on with that uninformed argument.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society"
And I say it's not. Is my opinion more valid than a science fiction writer's? Let's see... Violent crime has had an overall decreasing trend while, at the same time, guns have a decreasing relevance in everyday life.
slakr007 — Fri April 2nd 9:07a.m
You are incorrect sir, last year there was a record number of instant background checks (NICS), nearly 14 million of them! And crime is down.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
And your right to carry concealed is respected sir! Carry on!
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Please don't insult my intelligence or that of this audience by trying to say open carry advocates are trying to compensate. How juvenille and childish. We have more important things to discuss, like stopping all of these gangs from killing each other and how to lift them out of thier plight. I am a man of dignity and respect, as you are, let us please show that in this important debate about a fundamental human right!
There are thousands of women who carry concealed and open, are they inadequate, impotent?
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Check the facts: VPC has a tally of alll of the ccw killers.http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
ceasefire — Fri April 2nd 9:33a.m.
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Lot's of conjecture, but no truth. Over 260,000 Washington residents have a concealed weapons permit, several hundred carry openly as well. Where are the multitudes of those exercising their authority to 'be judge, jury, and executioner all in one minute?'
They simply do not exist unless they are in a gang or are a criminal already.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
"Guns have the tendency to make every situation more volatile."
No they do not and there is no facts to support your assertion. There are 6 million concealed carry citizens and there is not 6 million volatile arguments or shootings. Your fear is your projection of your inner anger.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Irrational fear.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Starbucks stock and business has been on the upswing since WA Ceasefire has gotten in the middle of this. More people know that open carry is legal thanks to WA Ceasefire. And no crimes by open carry advocates has occured.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
And it ws not commited by an open carry advocate or a concealed carry citizen. It was commited by a criminal. Crime, murder, rape happened before guns and it will continue to happen by thugs and criminals. Why does WA Ceasefire spend so much time and energy going after law abiding citizens.
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
In the history of open carry, there has not been one instance of an individual being targeted by a criminal. As a matter of fact in Kennesaw, GA a crime was averted because of individuals open carrying their firearm.
'Surprise' is an element of OFFENSE. It is not an element of defense, if someone is threatening violence you are already on the defense and you are the one who is surprised.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Because I do not hide that I am a gun carrier. Let the criminals hide and let the rest of us be open and honest.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Starbucks should be ashamed for following the law? Do you advocate not following the law?
Trained law enforcement, like the cop who pulled his weapon in Vancouver at the butcher and threatend the business?
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed ).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed ).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
kudos from a liberal, I agree!
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
