“You’re trying to be too logical,” says Oregon state Rep. Lew Frederick, after a woman rants about “multi automatic guns”, challenging the 2nd Amendment in court, wanting licensing for guns like we do with cars.
Rep. Frederick goes on to say that the issue has been “Hijacked by an effort to get as many guns as possible into the community. Where you have people believing that that is the only way that they can be safe. So they’ve got that message, we’ve gotta break that message.” He then goes on to mock people who study the Constitution, and ends by saying we need “enough people, frankly, in elected office who are willing to take on this issue.”
Robert Yuille, of a group called Gun Owners For Responsible Ownership, then takes the microphone and, sadly, laments that “I don’t think that we’re ever going to be able to change the Constitution as it’s written” and goes to say we need to “make certain that people that own the guns are held accountable and liable for those guns. Just like we have liability for our cars, we have liability insurance for our property if people get hurt on our property, we need to hold gun owners accountable and liable for their weapons.”
At the same event, they also talked about how to “convince more people that gun control is in everybody’s interest,” as Jake Weigler, of the Oregon Alliance For Gun Safety, went on to say “We limit you to two or three shots in your weapon if you’re hunting pheasants, but you don’t have any limits if it comes to humans… That doesn’t make any sense.” Anneliese Davis, Moms Demand Action chapter leader for Oregon, and former Houston area director for Planned Parenthood, chimes in, as well, with other ways to “convince” people to support more gun control.
As if that’s not enough, Rep. Frederick has an Uncle Ruckus moment, as he wonders “who they’re hunting” when he sees someone with a gun in his area, which has a large black population. But he assumes that someone with a gun in Burns, Oregon, a mostly white rural town, is safe and just going hunting. Can you imagine the media circus if a white Republican said something like this?
But they just want “reasonable, common sense gun laws”, and “no one’s coming to take your guns.”
1. The woman in the first video is being illogical by saying we should have only guns that existed when the constitution was written.
2. “Getting enough people in elected office willing to take on this issue” sounds like he’s trying to subvert the Bill of Rights with legislation.
3. Limiting ammunition capacity in hunting rifles is primarily about game management. Pheasants, Ducks and Geese don’t shoot back.
4. The last video “Uncle Ruckus” comment is a racist, yet pragmatic comment. White people, conservatives or libertarians are vilified for the same type of realistic or pragmatic views.
“… an effort to get as many guns as possible into the community. Where you have people believing that that is the only way that they can be safe.”
And rightly so, @sshole.
“We limit you to two or three shots in your weapon if you’re hunting pheasants, but you don’t have any limits if it comes to humans… That doesn’t make any sense.”
It only doesn’t make sense because you’re a brain-dead POS communist bimbo, and the only thing you’re useful for is fertilizer.
Of course there are no limits on ammo, that’s guaranteed by the 2nd, stupid @ss. That aside, even if the limit on pheasant hunting rounds were legal (which it’s NOT), PHEASANTS DON’T SHOOT BACK, DO THEY, jEWB#TCH???
Sooo Anal-ease Davis wants to save kids from guns but coat hangers at pp are fair game?
Thank God emasculated commie-joo closet fag jake weigler is there to be the voice of reason, using insurance and legal angles to push his agenda.
Are there any filthy j’s in insurance or law in his family?