Guns, and Paul Evans thoughts on the 2nd Amendment.

The timing of this post is a bit inconvenient, due to the horrible incident in Vegas. What I got from our leaders, those on the left immediately called for more gun control, while those on the right were silent. I asked that before we make this political, we help those who are hurt, help those who are mourning, and gather all information.

Well those on the left, made this political right away before the blood even dried. This is unacceptable, people were literally wailing in shock, while people like Hilary Clinton, made this about gun control. Why? What we now know is that no originally proposed law would have done anything to prevent this.

What proposal I am hearing now, is a ban on the bump stock that the shooter used. I won’t stand in the way of banning this, and it is the only proposal I actually have heard that would have presented a challenge to the shooter.

Update: 1.16.18 After talking with several people, I do not believe it is a good idea to just give free regulation on gun control. We must continue to fight for our rights, handed to us in the 2nd Amendment; especially in this state.

Now I want you to read this quote, taken from an article Paul Evans, my current opponent for Oregon House District 20. This quote was taken from Blue Oregon and can be found by clicking here.

“Second, we must recast the debate: instead of arguing over what the original intent of the Founders was (or was not) regarding the 2nd Amendment – let us modernize the agreement between the governed and our government.”

I’ve got some questions for Paul Evans:

We shouldn’t argue over the original intent of what the founding fathers had for the constitution? Does that mean we shouldn’t argue over the original intent of saying the 1st amendment? Or should people pick and chose what sections of the Constitution we should argue the intent of, only when it is convenient for these people? Who picks these people?

I’m not sorry Paul Evans, you can’t pick and chose what the intent was, based on what is convenient for you. If you no longer want to argue the intent of the 2nd amendment, than we no longer argue the intent of the rest. This, of course, means we can get rid of the supreme court who is meant to interrupt and rule on the original intent of the constitution.

Paul Evans, just like those in our government only want to allow rules that are convenient to them. When a law such as the second amendment is inconvenient to them, they wish to get rid of this. I’m here to stop this overreach of power and give more power to the people.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *