Shooting at Oregon Community College

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
great, more waiting for the law abiding citizens....

psst, the criminals aren't waiting
I'm not advocating for more waiting time to purchase firearms.
Just find it hypocritical that conservatives continue to make woman jump through hoops to get their Constitutional right to abortion while fighting all restrictions on ones Constitutional right to bear arms.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
I'm not advocating for more waiting time to purchase firearms.
Just find it hypocritical that conservatives continue to make woman jump through hoops to get their Constitutional right to abortion while fighting all restrictions on ones Constitutional right to bear arms.

Where is the Constitution does it say there is a right to abortion? Not the same as guns at all.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade granted woman the Constitutional Right to terminate their pregnancy.
 

BakerMayfield2018

Fight the power.
Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade granted woman the Constitutional Right to terminate their pregnancy.
That was a court case. It's not in the constitution. Big difference
 

oldngray

nowhere special
Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade granted woman the Constitutional Right to terminate their pregnancy.

That was a court case and not in the Constitution.The court could change its opinion about that at any time.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
sbh6Qox.jpg
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I agree with you. What I've heard is there are enough guns in the US already to arm everyone, including children. Seems like more than enough. Shootings happened 100 miles south of where I live. Seems something needs to change, or we will be reading about another mass shooting in 2 or 3 more months, just in a different location. Real change needs to happen, including better mental health care and less politicians beholding to the most powerful lobby in Washington.

The problem is not a lack of guns.

The problem is stupid laws that require the good people to leave their guns at home, which leaves the bad people (who don't follow laws anyway) free to do whatever the hell they want.

"Gun free zones" get people killed.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
The problem is not a lack of guns.

The problem is stupid laws that require the good people to leave their guns at home, which leaves the bad people (who don't follow laws anyway) free to do whatever the hell they want.

"Gun free zones" get people killed.
Problem with that argument is that if gun free zones work, there's nothing to hear about.
No sense in playing that game with anti-gun people. It's either a constitutionally protected right or it isn't.
If you think these types of laws are unjust the simple solution is to disobey them.
 

wayfair

swollen member
Problem with that argument is that if gun free zones work, there's nothing to hear about.
No sense in playing that game with anti-gun people. It's either a constitutionally protected right or it isn't.
If you think these types of laws are unjust the simple solution is to disobey them.


if gun free zones work, they should be liable when they don't
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Problem with that argument is that if gun free zones work, there's nothing to hear about.
No sense in playing that game with anti-gun people. It's either a constitutionally protected right or it isn't.
If you think these types of laws are unjust the simple solution is to disobey them.
Its not a problem I personally have to deal with, because I have a concealed carry permit and in Oregon you can carry pretty much anywhere you want to with one. Businesses are still free to put up "no guns allowed" signs but the signs do not have the force of law and you aren't breaking the law by ignoring them. You can even carry in schools with a permit. Only Federal buildings are off-limits, or county courthouses with signs and metal detectors to walk thru.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
establishments providing the "gun free zones", duh...
If someone makes the choice to participate in the gun free zone concept by going to those places and not arming themselves.... why should the owner of that establishment be held liable when something bad happens? No one made them go there and no one made them obey a sign.
 

wayfair

swollen member
If someone makes the choice to participate in the gun free zone concept by going to those places and not arming themselves.... why should the owner of that establishment be held liable when something bad happens? No one made them go there and no one made them obey a sign.

Well according to the laws, carrying in a school is against the law. And if you go to school and someone shoots it up, the school should be liable, negligent homicide...

If a school (or other) wants to have a gun free zone then there should be a law requirng them to make sure it remains gun free and offer adequate protection to those who enter. If the school (or other) doesn't want to take on that responsibility then the gun free zone ceases to exist and the existing state laws concerning CC would be in effect.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Well according to the laws, carrying in a school is against the law. And if you go to school and someone shoots it up, the school should be liable, negligent homicide...

If a school (or other) wants to have a gun free zone then there should be a law requirng them to make sure it remains gun free and offer adequate protection to those who enter. If the school (or other) doesn't want to take on that responsibility then the gun free zone ceases to exist and the existing state laws concerning CC would be in effect.
Or you could just not go there or ignore the sign. Thought we didn't need any new laws.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
Well according to the laws, carrying in a school is against the law. And if you go to school and someone shoots it up, the school should be liable, negligent homicide...

If a school (or other) wants to have a gun free zone then there should be a law requirng them to make sure it remains gun free and offer adequate protection to those who enter. If the school (or other) doesn't want to take on that responsibility then the gun free zone ceases to exist and the existing state laws concerning CC would be in effect.
Imagine a fully loaded Boeing 747 with 500 people aboard, all packing their firearms because the law says the airlines cannot restrict concealed carry. Somehow I don't think that would turn out to well.
 
Top