Bills allowing guns in cars limp forward

Two bills allowing registered gun owners to leave guns in their cars at work passed a House committee Tuesday despite strong statements from the governor and lieutenant governor that neither has a chance.

[OregonSux]

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.

Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

[Where Is My America]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

The National Guard is the governor's army under the ultimate control of the Federal Government.

Not a peoples militia.

Nor are people required , under the Second Amendment to be a part of a militia.

[Jagermann]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

The national guard did not even exist when the Bill of Rights was created. The second amendment does not require anyone to be part of a militia in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms nor has this been a requirement by any local or state government's throughout the history of the United States.

Your extremist anti-gun views are not shared by many and have already been discredited by the Supreme Court. According to this USA Today poll only 2% of Americans share your view that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/20...

[Louiston]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

What does the milita have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

[duzitreallymatte r]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

Read 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes, especially the part that pertains to unorganized militia and get back with us on that.

[ORSux]

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>The National Guard is the governor's army under the ultimate control of the Federal Government.
Not a peoples militia.
Nor are people required , under the Second Amendment to be a part of a militia.

Which is why the words well regulated militia were never used in the 2nd Amendment...oops, wait!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Have a gun, be part of a well regulated militia. Seems very, very, very clear except to those who want guns but are too lazy to attend the militia meetings.

[ORSux]

Louiston wrote:

<quoted text>What does the milita have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

Absolutely nothing which is why they are never talked about together...oh wait.

[ORSux]

Jagermann wrote:

<quoted text>
The national guard did not even exist when the Bill of Rights was created. The second amendment does not require anyone to be part of a militia in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms nor has this been a requirement by any local or state government's throughout the history of the United States.
Your extremist anti-gun views are not shared by many and have already been discredited by the Supreme Court. According to this USA Today poll only 2% of Americans share your view that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/20...

The intent is very clear even to the hard of hearing. What have you got against being part of a well regulated militia.

As I have said, repeatedly for you bonkers weirdos with anger management issues out there, I do not care how many guns you have. There are lots of paranoid, angry, small-minded, violent people out there. I just do not want to know you.

[ORSux]

And I think that because I am clearly a fool, you should all listen to me.

[JasonStorm]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

If it was the Old West back then, it would be no issue to you. You are like one of those Yankee carpetbaggers who think you can have it your way. And, not you are not going to have it your way!! Guns have been and always will be as American as apple pie depite your loathing of the 2nd Amendmant. And it has nothing to do with the Natl. Guard.

[JasonStorm]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

You just a hoplophobe (someone afraid of armed citizens), plain and simple.

[Have Seen It Before]

ORSux wrote:

And I think that because I am clearly a fool, you should all listen to me.

You sound like Peter Griffin's ass to me. Go blow Meg a kiss.

[Where Is My America]

ORSux wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is why the words well regulated militia were never used in the 2nd Amendment...oops, wait!
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Have a gun, be part of a well regulated militia. Seems very, very, very clear except to those who want guns but are too lazy to attend the militia meetings.

My post already answered that.

Why don't you quit while your behind?

[Hondo]

Soon we will all be wearing a gun on our hip....just like the old west. Government gone crazy !!!

[eternal cynic]

OregonSux wrote:

Why don't they require gun owners to become part of the national guard auxiliary bugle and tambourine corps. Make them attend meetings, practice deep meditation and drill in the hot sun.
Then they can carry guns around in return. Whatever happened to the well regulated militia part of that amendment. People just keep glossing over that part.

The US Supreme Court ruled in the DC v Heller case the second amendment applies to the people.
• The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.– Justice Scalia

Before you get in a twist, self-defense within the home is an example of lawful purpose, not a limitation on the scope of the statement.

I would present you the entire ruling but you’ve proven to be lazy in other threads. You wouldn’t take the time to read the longer document.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Before you attempt to use portions of the dissent as evidence to support your view you must understand dissent is the commentary of the minority of the court. In other words, the majority ruled against their opinions.

The second amendment according to the US Supreme Court belongs to the people, all the people.

As for the militia. You must interpret the document in the time it was written. The Founders of our nation clearly understood the benefit of an armed populous. We’re all part of that militia, even you.

The benefits are twofold. First and foremost to disallow a tyrannical government from oppressing the citizens. The second benefit was the ability of the citizens to defend this nation from foreign invaders. Which they did again in the war of 1812.

The victories during the Revolutionary War were only possible because most Americans owned firearms to provide food for their families. They turned those arms on the British. At the time Britain had the most powerful army in the world. Our militia comprised of farmers, hunters, trappers and various other professions handily defeated that army.

Today, the largest army in the world is not under the control of any nation. It’s the American hunter. Every year millions of Americans take to the woods. In 2011 15 million hunting licenses were issued. By comparison the largest army has 1.6 million troops. Make no mistake, if invaded the vast majority of Americans with firearms would turn those arms on invaders. Take all the gun owners and you have 80 million people.

[eternal cynic]

Hondo wrote:

Soon we will all be wearing a gun on our hip....just like the old west. Government gone crazy !!!

What’s wrong with that? When I lived in Georgia I often had a .45 on my hip. Nobody got shot.

[eternal cynic]

ORSux wrote:

<quoted text>
The intent is very clear even to the hard of hearing. What have you got against being part of a well regulated militia.
As I have said, repeatedly for you bonkers weirdos with anger management issues out there, I do not care how many guns you have. There are lots of paranoid, angry, small-minded, violent people out there. I just do not want to know you.

So, because there are some violent people in our nation we should punish everyone? That’s logical. Let’s ban automobiles. Angry people have used them as murder weapons. Stupid people kill people with cars every day.

Should we also ban alcohol because some people have anger issues when drunk?

That is what you’re saying.

Anger management is a crock of shit. It’s also a phrase idiots use to an attempt to desperately prove a point.

[Where Is My America]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
What’s wrong with that? When I lived in Georgia I often had a .45 on my hip. Nobody got shot.

As well as you did not get shot because you could defend yourself.

When seconds count,
the police are only minutes away.

[zardoz]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
What’s wrong with that? When I lived in Georgia I often had a .45 on my hip. Nobody got shot.

"Nobody" got shot in the old west either did they ??

[Have Seen It Before]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
So, because there are some violent people in our nation we should punish everyone? That’s logical. Let’s ban automobiles. Angry people have used them as murder weapons. Stupid people kill people with cars every day.
Should we also ban alcohol because some people have anger issues when drunk?
That is what you’re saying.
Anger management is a crock of shit. It’s also a phrase idiots use to an attempt to desperately prove a point.

Anger Management is in the same realm as Sensitivity Training. Both should be called Crock Of Shit. The truth upsets some people so badly that the truth teller gets sent to some lame ass limpdick mandated training to show them the error of their ways. Last time I was sent I took the certificate and farted on it in front of the whole class before tossing it in the trashcan on the way out the door.