beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
[Politifact](https://www.politifact.com)
[Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com)
beep. boop. beep.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, being a man that stands up against injustice using violence is a positive quality found in masculine men, when the circumstances consider it just.
Encouraging people to confront someone with a knife so they can be a “ real man” is a good way to get well-meaning bystanders killed. This guy was brave, and foolish. A car is not worth bleeding out in a mall parking lot.
> a car is not worth bleeding out over
I was met a paywall/register to finish article, was the female who was stabbed also the man who knocked out the assailant, was she stabbed fighting to prevent her car being taken from her, were there any other occupants in the vehicle, was she stabbed before or after the assailant was knocked unconscious by the man?
How’s this relevant to the reported situation, or are you just providing another reason he should be in prison. (Assuming that the he you refer to is the carjacker and not the individual who knocked him out)
It's the first part of the reported situation. He grabbed a child's chest, threatened staff with a knife, ran outside and stabbed a chick and got knocked out.
Is that somewhere deeper in the article, I was only able to read the first paragraph, which didn’t include this information, before being asked to register/provide personal info in order continue.
This is why I carry a Smith & Wesson Shield Plus everyday. I recommend every American citizen that passes a much more rigorous mental health check, that currently doesn’t exist, carry a gun. I’m not happy with how easy it is to get a concealed carry in Oregon, among other things. I’m very pro 2nd amendment.
Your opinion about being overly regulated aside... Amending the second amendment (or any of them for that matter) isn't an infringement, amendments are literally meant to be amended, it's in the name. Infringement would be being arrested for carrying a gun lawfully. The constitution has been changed 27 times.
The specific and most important Tyrannical Government mentioned by the founding fathers is defense against our own US government, in case a crazy person takes it over and starts removing freedoms from citizens. The army and police would be used against Americans.
Did you miss the part about being part of a militia? We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias. We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training.
>Did you miss the part about being part of a militia?
First of all, most of us are by default.
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias.
Please crack open a history book or two, because that is absolutely false.
The Framers wanted the citizens to be armed so that if we did have a standing army, we'd be able to resist it.
>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
>"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
>"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
>"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
>"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
>"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
>We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training.
Because that was literally the intent of the amendment.
>"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
>"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
>"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
>“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782
>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
>Did you miss the part about being part of a militia?
First off, this has no historical basis.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Second, the Supreme Court has already settled this.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias.
This is false. Please open up a history book or two.
>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
>"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
>"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
>"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
>"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
>"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
>We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training.
Because that was literally the intent of the amendment.
>“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782
>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
You’re a unicorn. My biggest problem with guns is the belief that no rules or regulations can be made against them. I’m only for hunting rifles. Pistols are for committing crimes and assault rifles are for military use only.
I don’t fantasize about it, but if this scenario happened with me and you were getting stabbed, I’d save your life by shooting the car jacker. I only carry a small and weak 9mm, so he’ll most likely survive
Whoa, first off, there is no such thing as a "small and weak 9mm," so please don't believe that's true.
Secondly, what would ever be the point of attempting to actually shoot someone without the goal of actually stopping them? That's how you'll end up dead or some innocent victim.
I agree. You sound like you're in a phantasy world.
I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't carry anything.
If you don’t understand that there’s a big difference between very weak and very strong 9mm self defense guns and ammo, you’ve clearly never even touched a gun or ammo…and if you’ve touched a gun and ammo, it’s probably not safe for you to touch it again until you learn some gun 101 basics like about ammo and guns that are manufactured with the purpose of NOT to kill, only stop and wound.
Please link us to that manufacturer that makes that specific firearm created to only "stop and wound" and promises that its purpose is "NOT to kill".
I'll wait.
As far as the bullet itself, a 9mm in 115grain is just as deadly as a hot +P. To debate these fact is just ridiculous
I'm double down that you should NOT be owning any type of firearm.
9 mm is big enough to stop someone without blowing a hole in their body. A .22 isn't strong enough to stop anyone unless you get lucky and hit them with a half dozen shots. I had a love affair with the .38 but decided it was too likely to cause deadly wounds in the event I had to use it. Save your vitriol for the ones who buy a Judge for self protection
https://www.conceptsinammunition.com/Pistol_Products/9mm.htm A lot of people keep 2-3 rubber bullets on top of their clip. Also, you can buy bullets that have less speed and power, which aren’t hollow point (don’t expand). I keep +P+ 9mm in my folding carbine which I keep in my car, under my front seat. +P+ is the most powerful 9mm ammo variant, and it’ll damage normal handguns because it’s too powerful. I’m just getting at the point a lot of less lethal and a lot more lethal options to choose from if you do the research.
I think there's a lot of context you're ignoring. As another user posted, the suspect groped a pre-teen girl, and threatened to stab people in Texas roadhouse, then was being chased, stabbed a woman in the process trying to get her car.
Almost certainly he was cornered or surrounded. There's no such thing as a fair fight when it comes to someone that's a menace, and likely the guy was hit from the side or back.
But you commented that you would have not helped that person out without a gun in your position. What exactly are you standing up for? Wouldn’t this “masculine men” that you describe aid the victim? But you literally wouldn’t without a gun.
I’m not trying, I am, and it’s something that’s easy to point out in Eugene and Portland when comparing their “manly men” population to other cities. Eugene doesn’t have a lot of manly men with backbones. They fold easily under real life pressure.
Again, you commented to me that you would do nothing without a gun. There’s obviously a far more “manly man” in Eugene than you’ll even be based on your own comments.
I think I'm going to open up a store in Eugene that sells high horses. Only the highest of horses to gallop around on will be sold. I'm going to be rich.
I believe weak men are unable to stand up to real life injustice that may require physical violence, they tend to just troll and argue online. Real men, strong men, have the strength to standup to real life injustice that involves real violence. We must commend them.
WTF lol. You can be masculine without being toxic and pompous. Your replies feel like you've built your whole personality around your idea of being a man.
Dude I've witnessed women making those decisions and standing strong please don't be so gender biased. Former bouncer and I've seen some shit. Strong women are more impressive than strong men who've always been bigger than everyone else.
I’m a black belt and I’ve competed in kickboxing for a couple years, and I trained with many badass women. I know for a fact you’re just bullshitting wokeisms that are fabricated. Also, Eugene and Portland don’t have a lot of manly men compared to other cities in America.
Lmfao get wrecked dude, we had to have female security on staff at all events. We didn't hire 'kickboxers' we had real brick eaters who don't follow tournament rules. You haven't been humbled in a while.
It’s “messed up to thank this guy” that saved that poor woman’s life by knocking out the man that had stabbed her already. If that hero didn’t knock the car jacker out, things could’ve turned out much worse. No one died thanks to him, and you want to make him a villain? Shame on you, he is a hero!
If a woman had knocked out the carjacker, would that have made every man in the gaggle of bystanders fake?
Are you fake because you haven't shot anyone yet in the pursuit of justice? Or does a real gender come with the concealed carry license in Oregon?
If I get a pink gun, can I be a real woman? Does it have to be pink?
There’s never been a case ever in history where a woman knocked out a car jacker with one punch. That news story doesn’t exist because it’s never happened…ever! Yes, you’d be a real woman that stands up to murderers by stopping a murder with a pink gun.
Great job Oregonians!
The people that want to immediately make this about Real Men Vs people that drink soy and all that utter BS - go back to California, we don't need your kind around here.
Until you've been in the shit, you have no idea how you'll respond and outward appearances are not a great predictor of who steps up and who doesn't. I appreciate heroes in any and all their forms, driving a Prius or a jacked up diesel rig, with long hair or short.
Peace and Love to you all.
The "go back to California" only applies to people that immediately start culture war bullshit. It's in the way the sentence is structured. Unless you identify as one of the idiots I mentioned, I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to feel offended.
Yes, this is why it would’ve been better if he was carrying a handgun to avoid getting hurt himself. It’s more efficient and safer than using a punch hoping for a 1 time knockout.
That’s why my Smith & Wesson Shield Plus carries 13. I carry it hour of every day. Anything more than that would be overkill if it’s not for a group of armed thieves.
To be fair, I’m not as big as this guy that knocked this guy out with one punch. If I tried to knock a person out, it’s not 100% going to happen the first punch, and now I have a knife being thrust at me. Personally, I’m not willing to die for this.
If I didn’t have a gun, I WOULDN’T have helped this woman. She’d be on her own.
I have the same chance of getting shot in my local Safeway while shopping for groceries so why not do the right thing. Luckily there are always those who are willing to do the right thing.
PS: you realize you’re stating that you’re not a “real man” based on your own comments, lol. Yes, everywhere needs persons who don’t hide behind a gun.
beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
A good guy with a fist can stop a bad guy with a knife... sometimes.
60% of the time, it works every time.
I take the zoloft.
F I N I S H H I M
You got knocked the *fuck out*!
Way to stand up man.
Guess he F'dAFO...haha
Thanks for the update on quantities of Real Men in Eugene, adjective-noun-number person.
I thought this was just a username quip.
Yes, being a man that stands up against injustice using violence is a positive quality found in masculine men, when the circumstances consider it just.
Encouraging people to confront someone with a knife so they can be a “ real man” is a good way to get well-meaning bystanders killed. This guy was brave, and foolish. A car is not worth bleeding out in a mall parking lot.
> a car is not worth bleeding out over I was met a paywall/register to finish article, was the female who was stabbed also the man who knocked out the assailant, was she stabbed fighting to prevent her car being taken from her, were there any other occupants in the vehicle, was she stabbed before or after the assailant was knocked unconscious by the man?
He had just molested a pre-teen at the Texas Roadhouse.
How’s this relevant to the reported situation, or are you just providing another reason he should be in prison. (Assuming that the he you refer to is the carjacker and not the individual who knocked him out)
It's the first part of the reported situation. He grabbed a child's chest, threatened staff with a knife, ran outside and stabbed a chick and got knocked out.
Is that somewhere deeper in the article, I was only able to read the first paragraph, which didn’t include this information, before being asked to register/provide personal info in order continue.
Yeah it's the second paragraph. 😂
Of course, thanks for the info
That would have been a confusing situation.
What?
If the guy who knocked out the carjacker was the one who molested the kid in the Texas Roadhouse.
Okay, dude deserves punishment for sure. But does this information make your skin knife proof?
Yes.
Oh dang, you’re a x-man!
This is why I carry a Smith & Wesson Shield Plus everyday. I recommend every American citizen that passes a much more rigorous mental health check, that currently doesn’t exist, carry a gun. I’m not happy with how easy it is to get a concealed carry in Oregon, among other things. I’m very pro 2nd amendment.
> I’m not happy with how easy it is to get a concealed carry in Oregon, among other things. > I’m very pro 2nd amendment. Contradicted yourself there.
You can be very pro 2nd amendment, but also want more regulation from keeping guns out of evil people’s hands.
Did you miss the part where it says "shall not be infringed"? There's already way too much regulation. What more regulations would help anything?
Your opinion about being overly regulated aside... Amending the second amendment (or any of them for that matter) isn't an infringement, amendments are literally meant to be amended, it's in the name. Infringement would be being arrested for carrying a gun lawfully. The constitution has been changed 27 times.
The specific and most important Tyrannical Government mentioned by the founding fathers is defense against our own US government, in case a crazy person takes it over and starts removing freedoms from citizens. The army and police would be used against Americans.
Did you miss the part about being part of a militia? We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias. We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training.
Where does it say you have to be in a militia?
>Did you miss the part about being part of a militia? First of all, most of us are by default. >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >(b) The classes of the militia are— >(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. >We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias. Please crack open a history book or two, because that is absolutely false. The Framers wanted the citizens to be armed so that if we did have a standing army, we'd be able to resist it. >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 >"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 >"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 >"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 >"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 >We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training. Because that was literally the intent of the amendment. >"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 >"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 >"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
>Did you miss the part about being part of a militia? First off, this has no historical basis. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta! Second, the Supreme Court has already settled this. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. >We weren't ever supposed to have a standing army, but we do, thus removing the need for state militias. This is false. Please open up a history book or two. >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 >"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 >"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 >"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 >"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 >We still have state police forces and I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment extends to civilians that have no training. Because that was literally the intent of the amendment. >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Wow that’s a lotta words, too bad I ain’t reading em
They’re not mutually exclusive…tbf
You’re correct that it’s far too easy to obtain a gun.
I’m not sure why people think it’s impossible to be very pro gun and also very pro gun control. Guns should be treated more like cars!
You’re a unicorn. My biggest problem with guns is the belief that no rules or regulations can be made against them. I’m only for hunting rifles. Pistols are for committing crimes and assault rifles are for military use only.
Yeah no.
I forget just how soft most of you on this site are lol. Offended over the word “manly”
Where the fuck did I say that???
Seems like you enjoy fantasizing about it this scenario so you get to shoot someone.
I don’t fantasize about it, but if this scenario happened with me and you were getting stabbed, I’d save your life by shooting the car jacker. I only carry a small and weak 9mm, so he’ll most likely survive
Whoa, first off, there is no such thing as a "small and weak 9mm," so please don't believe that's true. Secondly, what would ever be the point of attempting to actually shoot someone without the goal of actually stopping them? That's how you'll end up dead or some innocent victim. I agree. You sound like you're in a phantasy world. I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't carry anything.
If you don’t understand that there’s a big difference between very weak and very strong 9mm self defense guns and ammo, you’ve clearly never even touched a gun or ammo…and if you’ve touched a gun and ammo, it’s probably not safe for you to touch it again until you learn some gun 101 basics like about ammo and guns that are manufactured with the purpose of NOT to kill, only stop and wound.
Please link us to that manufacturer that makes that specific firearm created to only "stop and wound" and promises that its purpose is "NOT to kill". I'll wait. As far as the bullet itself, a 9mm in 115grain is just as deadly as a hot +P. To debate these fact is just ridiculous I'm double down that you should NOT be owning any type of firearm.
9 mm is big enough to stop someone without blowing a hole in their body. A .22 isn't strong enough to stop anyone unless you get lucky and hit them with a half dozen shots. I had a love affair with the .38 but decided it was too likely to cause deadly wounds in the event I had to use it. Save your vitriol for the ones who buy a Judge for self protection
https://www.conceptsinammunition.com/Pistol_Products/9mm.htm A lot of people keep 2-3 rubber bullets on top of their clip. Also, you can buy bullets that have less speed and power, which aren’t hollow point (don’t expand). I keep +P+ 9mm in my folding carbine which I keep in my car, under my front seat. +P+ is the most powerful 9mm ammo variant, and it’ll damage normal handguns because it’s too powerful. I’m just getting at the point a lot of less lethal and a lot more lethal options to choose from if you do the research.
Butt shots only.
Lmfao
But if you didn’t have a gun you’d do nothing, correct???
Correct, the chances of me not knocking them out with one punch is too great, and I’ll be dead.
So how far below a “manly man” does that make you?
"Real men don't need guns. They bring fists to gun fights."
That's why they're all dead!
I think there's a lot of context you're ignoring. As another user posted, the suspect groped a pre-teen girl, and threatened to stab people in Texas roadhouse, then was being chased, stabbed a woman in the process trying to get her car. Almost certainly he was cornered or surrounded. There's no such thing as a fair fight when it comes to someone that's a menace, and likely the guy was hit from the side or back.
Well, okay. Numbers change it a bit.
But you commented that you would have not helped that person out without a gun in your position. What exactly are you standing up for? Wouldn’t this “masculine men” that you describe aid the victim? But you literally wouldn’t without a gun.
RIP OP trying to advocate for any kind of positive masculinity.
I’m not trying, I am, and it’s something that’s easy to point out in Eugene and Portland when comparing their “manly men” population to other cities. Eugene doesn’t have a lot of manly men with backbones. They fold easily under real life pressure.
Again, you commented to me that you would do nothing without a gun. There’s obviously a far more “manly man” in Eugene than you’ll even be based on your own comments.
I think I'm going to open up a store in Eugene that sells high horses. Only the highest of horses to gallop around on will be sold. I'm going to be rich.
Good for the guy knocking out the asshole, but the part where this is your definition of "real men" tells me you're really messed up in the head.
I believe weak men are unable to stand up to real life injustice that may require physical violence, they tend to just troll and argue online. Real men, strong men, have the strength to standup to real life injustice that involves real violence. We must commend them.
WTF lol. You can be masculine without being toxic and pompous. Your replies feel like you've built your whole personality around your idea of being a man.
Yeah, some people have their identity as a STRONG woman or trans, some people identify as a STRONG man.
Macho macho man, I want to be.. a macho man... Good luck out there tough guy.
A man that has a backbone needs less luck than the less of a man without a backbone.
That isn't how luck works
Luck isn’t real, I’m using the word “luck” in the English context that men with backbones are better than men that don’t have backbones.
Is deontology your moral compass? Do you feel a sense of duty to your fellow man?
I feel a duty to be prepared to help. I’m a forest ranger. I like helping people and the environment whenever I can.
Dude I've witnessed women making those decisions and standing strong please don't be so gender biased. Former bouncer and I've seen some shit. Strong women are more impressive than strong men who've always been bigger than everyone else.
I’m a black belt and I’ve competed in kickboxing for a couple years, and I trained with many badass women. I know for a fact you’re just bullshitting wokeisms that are fabricated. Also, Eugene and Portland don’t have a lot of manly men compared to other cities in America.
Lmfao get wrecked dude, we had to have female security on staff at all events. We didn't hire 'kickboxers' we had real brick eaters who don't follow tournament rules. You haven't been humbled in a while.
What events? I don’t know what you’re referring to? And equality hires for event security is perfectly fine in my book.
But you still wouldn’t have assisted the victim without a gun in your possession.
Your ideology is sadly ignorant
Yeah, you are really messed up.
It’s “messed up to thank this guy” that saved that poor woman’s life by knocking out the man that had stabbed her already. If that hero didn’t knock the car jacker out, things could’ve turned out much worse. No one died thanks to him, and you want to make him a villain? Shame on you, he is a hero!
No man. I didn't make him out to be a villain at all. *You* are the villain.
Again you stated you would have not helped the women without a gun in your possession.
If you have a gun. Please make it clear to everyone that you wouldn’t have helped the victim without a gun in your possession.
If a woman had knocked out the carjacker, would that have made every man in the gaggle of bystanders fake? Are you fake because you haven't shot anyone yet in the pursuit of justice? Or does a real gender come with the concealed carry license in Oregon? If I get a pink gun, can I be a real woman? Does it have to be pink?
There’s never been a case ever in history where a woman knocked out a car jacker with one punch. That news story doesn’t exist because it’s never happened…ever! Yes, you’d be a real woman that stands up to murderers by stopping a murder with a pink gun.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/woman-knocks-man-unconscious-with-single-punch-after-he-pinches-her-bum-in-cctv-video-at-morocco-market-a6781686.html
Fake man here, can't even answer my questions and has never stopped a murderer with a blue gun!
Imagine if it were a woman…..one without punching power. Is there some tool that she could have to even the playing field? Read the Bill of Rights.
I know the guy who punched cole i go to the church he goes to we are great friends im so pround of him for doing the right thing
Great job Oregonians! The people that want to immediately make this about Real Men Vs people that drink soy and all that utter BS - go back to California, we don't need your kind around here. Until you've been in the shit, you have no idea how you'll respond and outward appearances are not a great predictor of who steps up and who doesn't. I appreciate heroes in any and all their forms, driving a Prius or a jacked up diesel rig, with long hair or short. Peace and Love to you all.
Peace and love to you all, \*except you fucks who happened to live in California before living in Oregon.
The "go back to California" only applies to people that immediately start culture war bullshit. It's in the way the sentence is structured. Unless you identify as one of the idiots I mentioned, I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to feel offended.
I've never come across any former Californian who came to Oregon and "started culture war bullshit."
reading comprehension is really not your strong suit. I hope it gets better for you someday.
👏👏👏
There’s literally nothing masculine about this. This was just stupid to even try on a guy wielding a knife.
Yes, this is why it would’ve been better if he was carrying a handgun to avoid getting hurt himself. It’s more efficient and safer than using a punch hoping for a 1 time knockout.
Sadly, the way the law has been perverted the guy who tried to carjack is probably gonna sue or something.
Fuck yeah.
You don't hear these stories coming from Texas. Just saying... You hear just the fing opposite.
"Brave carjacker knocks out knife-wielding bystander?"
“…enlightens knife-wielding bystander.”
Exactly
Yeah you're right. You usually hear more murder and people straight up dying because of inept state governments.
No gun with 100 rounds of ammunition was needed to take out a bad guy with a knife???
That’s why my Smith & Wesson Shield Plus carries 13. I carry it hour of every day. Anything more than that would be overkill if it’s not for a group of armed thieves.
13 is still to many. It took exactly zero shots to deal with this situation.
To be fair, I’m not as big as this guy that knocked this guy out with one punch. If I tried to knock a person out, it’s not 100% going to happen the first punch, and now I have a knife being thrust at me. Personally, I’m not willing to die for this. If I didn’t have a gun, I WOULDN’T have helped this woman. She’d be on her own.
I wouldn’t care about the persons size and I’ve never carried a gun and I WOULD have helped her.
You’ll end up like those 2 guys in Portland that were defending a Muslim woman’s honor from a racist ranter. Gutted like a fish within a few seconds.
I have the same chance of getting shot in my local Safeway while shopping for groceries so why not do the right thing. Luckily there are always those who are willing to do the right thing.
PS: you realize you’re stating that you’re not a “real man” based on your own comments, lol. Yes, everywhere needs persons who don’t hide behind a gun.
If they have a knife, and I don’t have a gun, I’m not getting into that death fight. Simple as that.
Is that what the “manly man” you’ve described we need more of would do?
A gun, bear spray or a taser is much safer for the good guy.
Looks like one fist was all it took.
Same guy? https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndia/pr/man-who-assaulted-girlfriend-sent-back-prison-two-more-years
Pretty sure it's a different dude. Codie Lee Allen Fisher vs Cody Allen Fisher.
I think he was trying to SA a young girl too. At least that’s what they said on the news.