Welcome to the people’s republic of Oregon

[26Reload]

I think you missed one.......total number of cigarettes a person can smoke in a 24 hour period..or purchase in a years time....
Facing the fact that secondary smoke has killed many people....and it could be considered death by suicide........

 

[MudRunner2005]

I bumped the send key too soon. Republicans typically show up more reliably then the democrates. 2018 was an exception. If I recall, ---- near 80% of registered republicans cast their ballots. A greater % of dems voted. My sense, given conversations I've had, is there are significant numbers of conservative, like minded people who aren't registered. I wonder if those, if voting, would make a difference.
Or we just draw a line down I-5; wiggle it to include all of Portland and Salem, down just past Eugene and then over to the coast. Let them form their own state, most of them don't like leaving Portland anyway, I know, people have been talking about a new Oregon for at least 50 years.

Isn't Portland's slogan "Keep Portland Weird"??? That should tell you all you need to know about it...

 

[MudRunner2005]

I think you missed one.......total number of cigarettes a person can smoke in a 24 hour period..or purchase in a years time....
Facing the fact that secondary smoke has killed many people....and it could be considered death by suicide........

Limit all cigarette boxes to no more than 5 smokes, or else it's considered a high-capacity pack.

Seriously though, have you noticed that's always these weirdo leftists/liberals that are anti-smoking? Why is that? Like, they want to ban smoking from existence for good. Just like they want to do with guns...And of course our Constitutional rights that they don't agree with. Conservatives, if they don't like something, they ignore it. Liberals don't like something, they want it banned, destroyed, never seen again, etc... It's like they're so mentally fragile, just knowing it exists outside of their little pea brain makes them go catatonic. It's insane how weak-minded these people are, and the fact that we're just letting them run the show is pure insanity. It's time we run the PC-train off a cliff.

Next time some liberal/leftist tries to correct you with some PC crap, tell them to STFU and to go get bent! We need to start standing up for ourselves! I'm normally live & let live...But these nutjobs are winning, because we're letting them get away with it. If we stop doing that, they start running back to their hidey-holes and back under their rocks they crawled out from. The only thing that scares a liberal more than pro-gun legislation, is a conservative with an aggressive anti-PC "don't take sh!t" attitude. Which is why something as simple as a red MAGA hat sends them into meltdown convulsions of insanity.

 

[manitou]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Infinge: To violate a law or one's rights.
Take it to the Supreme Court!

 

[TG-5150]

We were warned

 

[MudRunner2005]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Infinge: To violate a law or one's rights.
Take it to the Supreme Court!

Not yet... Give it a few more weeks... Then once RBG croaks or retires, and Trump has time to put another pro-2A Justice in her place, then run it through the SC.

 

[the hunter]

I think some westerners could learn a little from us southerners. NOT saying git into a gun battle, butt some people could tell there senators how they feel.Recalling the battle for Athens, Tenn. - US news - Life | NBC News

 

[BigGrizz]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Infinge: To violate a law or one's rights.
Take it to the Supreme Court!

Well, the actual constitutional statement is longer, but they're not infringing on the right to bear arms from what I can tell (I may need to go back and read OP). It seems they're saying you can have the gun and their real approach is to limit the # of rounds at one's disposal.

I'm sure it'll go to SCOTUS if it becomes law (Remember it's just a Bill right now). RBG is irrelevant at this point, however, if she were to kick the bucket before Nov '20 then people may want to break that law because the crazies gonna come out.

 

[Deleted member 25294]

View attachment 117681We were warned

**** that's a great Churchill quote!

You've gotta love how every time Trump exercises one of his constitutional authorities some left wing activist judge claims it's unconstitutional..

Where are these born again constitutionalists when the constitution is actually being violated??

I'm telling you my generation is the most radical yet! It scares me..

 

[Riflehunter1776]

The bill is sponsored at the request of "Students for Change". A state bill sponsored by a national organization to effect law on people of a state they do not reside in.

sounds like another neo-comintern organization sponsored by Soros. Now all he needs is to command Tass and Pravda (CNN and NBC) to decry all opposition as racist and fascist.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I think some westerners could learn a little from us southerners. NOT saying git into a gun battle, butt some people could tell there senators how they feel.Recalling the battle for Athens, Tenn. - US news - Life | NBC News

Yep, they conveniently "forget" to teach you about The Battle of Athens these days... They don't want folks getting any ideas that don't align with their liberal/lefty/commie brainwashing.

 

[Country Bumpkin]

I bumped the send key too soon. Republicans typically show up more reliably then the democrates. 2018 was an exception. If I recall, ---- near 80% of registered republicans cast their ballots. A greater % of dems voted. My sense, given conversations I've had, is there are significant numbers of conservative, like minded people who aren't registered. I wonder if those, if voting, would make a difference.
Or we just draw a line down I-5; wiggle it to include all of Portland and Salem, down just past Eugene and then over to the coast. Let them form their own state, most of them don't like leaving Portland anyway, I know, people have been talking about a new Oregon for at least 50 years.

Good idea, you could just add everything west of that line to Idaho. Might as well, it would make me feel better to see less OR plates each fall. Should do the same for Washington.

just poking fun... kind of.

;-)

Back on subject, I hope for everyone's sake that this falls flat on its face

 

[Barrelnut]

I think some westerners could learn a little from us southerners. NOT saying git into a gun battle, butt some people could tell there senators how they feel.Recalling the battle for Athens, Tenn. - US news - Life | NBC News

Well that's inspirational! Thanks.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Well, the actual constitutional statement is longer, but they're not infringing on the right to bear arms from what I can tell (I may need to go back and read OP). It seems they're saying you can have the gun and their real approach is to limit the # of rounds at one's disposal.

I'm sure it'll go to SCOTUS if it becomes law (Remember it's just a Bill right now). RBG is irrelevant at this point, however, if she were to kick the bucket before Nov '20 then people may want to break that law because the crazies gonna come out.

ANYTHING, and I mean absolutely ANYTHING that prohibits ANY citizens from obtaining ANY type of firearm or ammunition for that firearm is considered infringement. So, technically, every single law on the books concerning guns, the very existence of the BATFE, background checks, the NFA, the GCA of '68, the Hughes Amendment, etc... goes against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a limited right, in its original context.

Granted, Big Brother and pinheads in the judicial system have bastardized it to the point that has now become a limited right, but that does not mean that it was ever meant to be limited in any way, shape, or form. Just read the wording. Also, those that say, "yeah, but it says for a well regulated militia..." The 2nd Amendment is a 2-part sentence. The part that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is simply making a statement. It is stating that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to ensuring the security of a free state. And being that in those times, because we didn't really have a large official military like we do today, it also counted on any male of fighting age as part of the militia, so that includes ALL of "We the people". The 2nd part is the most important one...Where it says, "The right of the people (all citizens) to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED."