2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Also, 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!

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

No it would not.  Are you racist?  There is no point in this debate for racists.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

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

As soon as all the criminals turn in their guns, knives, sticks, give me a call.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Mr.  Fascitelli,

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

Mr. Fascitelli,

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

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

If it is appropriate for a police officer to defend ones own life, then clearly Vancouver and Clark County are not as safe as you think.  Crime does not happen on a schedule sir, please ask victims of crimes in Vancouver.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

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