Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Southwest Firearms
J&B Firearm Sales
Low Price Guns
Gun Deals
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Oregon Rifleworks
Simply Triggers
Sporting Systems
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Defensive Arts
HighLine Firearms

STONER_63

Messages
132
Reactions
274
Some of the most idiotic comments/questions I've heard:

"Why can't you just keep your guns locked up at the range?"
"Do you really think you can stop the US Military?"
"Children are scared to go to school!"
"...Because you can't fight like a REAL man"

Those are some of my favorites, along with the whole questioning of my manhood and so forth. Oh yeah and people asking me if I'm "NRA" in their best concerned mom voice as if it was the Klan or something... I mean no other group of people would tolerate this level of abuse for exercising a fundamental right. Bear in mind I'm not open-carrying or wearing Grunt Style t-shirts. And my rig is not covered in Oregunian stickers. But when someone says something stupid, I will speak up and defend the 2A. I guess that's enough to be attacked in this State.
Sad but true!
 

STONER_63

Messages
132
Reactions
274
Ok I'll Play,

The legality of 'pistol braces' SHOULD be put on indefinite hold until the owners can obtain a medical evaluation that supports their inability to shoot a pistol conventionally due to physical limitations, which was the original intent of the braces.

Once obtained the owners may continue to to use the brace but only in the manner in which it was designed such as strapped to the arm for support.

Those not having verifiable medical inabilities may keep their brace, sell it etc. but it CANNOT remain attached to THEIR pistol.

Moving forward anyone observed using a 'pistol brace' as a de facto stock and shooting with it on the shoulder shall be subject to a $500 fine and confiscation of the brace only.

Also to support this anyone who observes someone using a brace as a 'stock', and can provide photographic/video proof will be rewarded with a $500 gift card for a company of their choosing AFTER the owner is identified, fined and the stock confiscated.

The whole intent of this is the eliminate the ability for one to create a 'short barreled rifle' aside from the normal, legal channels.
Spoiler Alert! You obviously got a sneak preview of tomorrow's Executive Order(s).
 
Messages
10,693
Reactions
26,564
I only 'skimmed' this article but will read it completely later.

Regardless I find it reprehensible someone who claims to have 'fled' the Soviet Union due to religious persecution has to audacity to claim 'similar' persecution in the U.S. - and then to somehow segue into 'gun laws' and 'hate and bigotry'?

This is an example of self- righteousness at its pinnacle and something we have allowed to 'sneak in' unchecked - the unfettered 'acceptance' of anyone new, from anywhere and allowing them the freedom to criticize us as a Country.

Some may not agree but I have always been one who believes we need to be 'acceptably cautious' of any one new - be they from another country or from another state - and have never just given a 'welcome wagon' to anyone new, even to say Oregon - especially if the first words out of their mouths are criticism - and I have seen and experienced a lot of that from 'newbies' to the area over the years.

Some I have had to be 'respectfully' honest with explain to them why they are experiencing the 'persecution' they were from locals in the area or other long term residents ( or natives) they encountered with less than friendly outcomes.

I have also at times been a bit less than 'congenial' to those I have met who start out with nothing but criticism and judgement as newcomers to Oregon.

You're welcome for sharing. :)
 
Messages
1,004
Reactions
2,579
"90% of Americans support universal background checks."

Should read: "90% of ignorant uninformed Americans support universal background checks."

When the entire implication of a UBCs are explained to law abiding citizens, that 90% support drops significantly.:
  • National gun registry.
  • Giving the govt. massive amounts of personal information.
  • Set up for a potential confiscation or mandatory buyback.
  • Extra burden & liability on FFLs.
  • States that already implement UBCs have shown little to no effect on gun violence.
 

MichaelH

Messages
152
Reactions
130
The problem is that most people don't own guns, even if lots of people do. They don't value the ability to own and use one so they don't 1) consider that the 2nd amendment is important because it doesn't apply to them and 2) understand that it is patronizing and offensive to everyone who responsibly owns a firearm that isn't suicidal or crazy to claim that ownership of that thing is a danger to society.

Most people really forget about that 2nd amendment, and they also don't understand that the Supreme Court has ruled that ownership of firearms for personal protection is an individual right, separate from the well regulated militia part. Whether they think Heller was decided correctly or incorrectly, they ignore that it's the law. On the other hand what gun 2nd amendment advocates forget is that no fundamental constitutional right is absolute and government can absolutely regulate aspects of gun ownership without violating the rights given by Heller. The courts get to decide the contours now, and the Supreme Court is stacked with pro 2A justices at the moment.
 
Last Edited:

arakboss

Messages
9,257
Reactions
14,970
The problem is that most people don't own guns, even if lots of people do. They don't value the ability to own and use one so they don't 1) consider that the 2nd amendment is important because it doesn't apply to them, 2) understand that it is patronizing and offensive to everyone who responsibly owns a firearm and isn't suicidal or crazy to suggest that ownership of that thing is a danger to society.

Most people really forget about that 2nd amendment and they also don't understand that the Supreme Court has ownership of firearms for personal protection is an individual right, separate from the well regulated militia part. Whether they think Heller was decided correctly or incorrectly they ignore that it's the law. What gun owners and 2nd amendment folks forget is that no fundamental constitutional right is absolute and government can absolutely regulate aspects of gun ownership without violating Heller. The courts get to decide the contours now and the Supreme Court is stacked with pro 2A justices at the moment.
I am guessing the majority of voters don't have much interest in protecting the second amendment and if you tell them the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from tyranny, many of them will think you are a nut job.
 

uberguy

Messages
612
Reactions
1,156
Liberal anti-firearms myth: more guns = more gun violence, gun murders.

The FBI tracks firearms manufactured in the US, showing during the last 20 years, over 300% more guns and 500% more ARs were produced and sold.

The homicide rate declined by over 10% during that 'growth period' for guns sold.

The scientific data correlation is more civilian owned guns, fewer homicides, period.
 
Last Edited:

Knobgoblin

Messages
766
Reactions
1,839
Liberal anti-firearms myth: more guns = more gun violence, gun deaths.

The FBI tracks firearms manufactured in the US, showing during the last 20 years, over 300% more guns and 500% more ARs were produced and sold.

The homicide rate declined by over 10% during that 'growth period' for guns sold.

The scientific data correlation is more civilian owned guns, fewer homicides, period.
" But , like, you know man I just FEEL as if more people are dying "
 

uberguy

Messages
612
Reactions
1,156
The CDC funded a firearm violence study ordered by President Obama, published in 2013 showing that guns used in self-defense vastly outnumber the times guns are used in assaults and homicides.

Multiple peer reviewed incidence studies were referenced.

It showed approximately 300,000 criminal assaults with a firearm for the period in question, vs numbers ranging from 500,000 to 2.5 million civilian use of a firearm in self-defense, average across the studies was over 1 million self-defense uses.

The study is here (free PDF download):

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm ...

 

uberguy

Messages
612
Reactions
1,156
President Joe Biden promises to end the firearms manufacturer PLCAA law

“It is so long past time that we correct one of the most egregious special interest giveaways the United States Congress has ever engaged in – the civil liability protections granted to gun manufacturers against being sued by the victims of gun violence,”

In reality, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

Like all manufactures, liability exists for defective products, but the protection is from civil lawsuits designed to bankrupt companies when legal products are used in criminal acts.

No one sues over cars used in crimes, or knives, or bandanas or other products.
 

uberguy

Messages
612
Reactions
1,156
Over 60% of what anti-gun activists call "Gun Violence" are suicide by gun, it's over 75% in Washington and some other states. Suicide while regrettable, is not violence in the way most intelligent people think of violence.

The vast majority of gun suicides are by males, white males, rural males, middle-aged or elderly males. Women, children and minorities rarely use a gun in suicide.

Legalize suicide for adults of sound mind, the majority of 'gun violence' disappears.
 

Knobgoblin

Messages
766
Reactions
1,839
Sol-death-cntr-1-250.jpg SoylentGreeneuthanasiascene.jpg
 

Jonnyuma

Messages
3,084
Reactions
7,899
Regardless I find it reprehensible someone who claims to have 'fled' the Soviet Union due to religious persecution has to audacity to claim 'similar' persecution in the U.S. - and then to somehow segue into 'gun laws' and 'hate and bigotry'?
Dude's entire schtick is anti-gun. He doesn't even pretend it's not as he's the HMFIC of some group who's purpose is "fewer guns"*.

The persecuted Russian Jew story is just another angle to justify his agenda... window dressing to play on emotion and give him some cred.

*l actually mistyped this to say "fewer huns"... seems like our jewish friend might actually be of better service by joining the Simon Weisenthal organization and dedicating himself to this as a pursuit instead of attacking gun owning American citizens.
 

MichaelH

Messages
152
Reactions
130
Liberal anti-firearms myth: more guns = more gun violence, gun murders.

The FBI tracks firearms manufactured in the US, showing during the last 20 years, over 300% more guns and 500% more ARs were produced and sold.

The homicide rate declined by over 10% during that 'growth period' for guns sold.

The scientific data correlation is more civilian owned guns, fewer homicides, period.

Ok, thinking about the data uberguy asserted above (give us a citation or analytical summary, brah...), here is a common one that's resonated with me before:

"After the Port Authur massacre, Australia outlawed most guns for most purposes and initiated a nationwide gun buy-back program The result was a dramatic drop in gun violence. Removing guns from society and limiting access to guns reduces gun violence."

Whenever I hear that argument I always conclude "that argument doesn't fly here, because Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment." More recently I've seen something that suggested that the Australian gun bans were not as successful as some suggest, but forgotten the source.

Separately, thinking about uberguy's gun ownership vs. crime stats information, anyone critically analyzing that data and uberguy's conclusion would try to determine if the increase in firearms ownership and decrease in the homicide rate have anythingnto do with one another. Statistics can mean lots of things. It's absolutely true that someone with a firearm in his or her possession is more likely to have themselves or a family member be killed by a firearm than someone who doesn't own or possess a firearm....ok...that makes some sense but why? Failure of losers to secure firearms from children? Suicide? DV? This is why the constitutional backstop is important, because it makes stats that can be twisted have less weight.

Another argument that sort of comes from both sides of the gun control debate is comparing gun deaths and injuries to traffic fatalities. Pro 2A folks argue there are more traffic fatalities and injuries than gun fatalities but we don't ban cars. In response the gun-control advocates say: "sure but we license drivers, sometimes require training, a written test, a test demonstrating safe operation of the vehicle, liability insurance, an eye exam, mandatory safety equipment, regulations on the manufacturers for safety, emissions, fuel consumption, weight of vehicles, regulations about the safety of roads and highways, etc." The "but we don't ban cars" is one of the stupidest argument pro 2A advocates make to argue against government banning certain firearms, because car use and ownership is highly regulated and, arguably cars are far more useful to more people than firearms in our country. Now the pro-gun folks have anticipated and adopted their response to the "but we don't ban cars" argument and adopted it in promoting some gun legislation. The simple response is "driving is a privilege but firearm ownership is a constitutional right."
 

arakboss

Messages
9,257
Reactions
14,970
Ok, thinking about the data uberguy asserted above (give us a citation or analytical summary, brah...), here is a common one that's resonated with me before:

"After the Port Authur massacre, Australia outlawed most guns for most purposes and initiated a nationwide gun buy-back program The result was a dramatic drop in gun violence. Removing guns from society and limiting access to guns reduces gun violence."

Whenever I hear that argument I always conclude "that argument doesn't fly here, because Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment." More recently I've seen something that suggested that the Australian gun bans were not as successful as some suggest, but forgotten the source.

Separately, thinking about uberguy's gun ownership vs. crime stats information, anyone critically analyzing that data and uberguy's conclusion would try to determine if the increase in firearms ownership and decrease in the homicide rate have anythingnto do with one another. Statistics can mean lots of things. It's absolutely true that someone with a firearm in his or her possession is more likely to have themselves or a family member be killed by a firearm than someone who doesn't own or possess a firearm....ok...that makes some sense but why? Failure of losers to secure firearms from children? Suicide? DV? This is why the constitutional backstop is important, because it makes stats that can be twisted have less weight.

Another argument that sort of comes from both sides of the gun control debate is comparing gun deaths and injuries to traffic fatalities. Pro 2A folks argue there are more traffic fatalities and injuries than gun fatalities but we don't ban cars. In response the gun-control advocates say: "sure but we license drivers, sometimes require training, a written test, a test demonstrating safe operation of the vehicle, liability insurance, an eye exam, mandatory safety equipment, regulations on the manufacturers for safety, emissions, fuel consumption, weight of vehicles, regulations about the safety of roads and highways, etc." The "but we don't ban cars" is one of the stupidest argument pro 2A advocates make to argue against government banning certain firearms, because car use and ownership is highly regulated and, arguably cars are far more useful to more people than firearms in our country. Now the pro-gun folks have anticipated and adopted their response to the "but we don't ban cars" argument and adopted it in promoting some gun legislation. The simple response is "driving is a privilege but firearm ownership is a constitutional right."
I agree with you about auto death argument. One way to rephrase the idea that we don't have a right to defend our lives with a firearm, is to say, those who wish to take our lives deserve the right to take our lives without fear of being shot.
 

CLT65

Messages
2,982
Reactions
7,390
How about some supposed “common sense” arguments, and rational rebuttals?

“Everyone supports universal background checks.”
Rebuttal: are we talking background checks, or de-facto registration? When offered compromise laws that include BGCs but leave out the registration aspect (no records kept, exemptions for CHL holders, etc.) the activists and lawmakers pushing BGCs will have none of it. It’s very clear that it’s all about registration to them, not background checks.

“If only guns didn’t exist, or were controlled to where they couldn’t hurt anyone. The world would be so much safer.”
My otherwise intelligent, gun owning coworker tried this one once. My reply was this: Gee, if only there was a time in recorded human history that we could look back on, before firearms existed, and see if that was the case, if people lived in constant peace and harmony without the evil influence of guns... No, wait, actually all of human history has been violent, people slaughtered each other with fists, rocks, clubs, swords. The problem is the violence in the human heart, not the tool used.
 

uberguy

Messages
612
Reactions
1,156
Removing guns from society and limiting access to guns reduces gun violence."

There is no data showing that removing guns or limiting access reduces violence.

MichaelH: "Separately, thinking about uberguy's gun ownership vs. crime stats information, anyone critically analyzing that data and uberguy's conclusion would try to determine if the increase in firearms ownership and decrease in the homicide rate have anything to do with one another"

It's not necessary to prove causation. For one thing, the data correlation is sufficient to tear down the more guns = more deaths argument. For another, the need to prove causation should be on the gun-control / gun-ban crowd.

They NEVER prove that each (or any) new gun control laws cause reductions in gun violence or violent crimes.

When infringing a constitutional right such as gun-control clearly does, the onus is on the government or should be, under legal 'Strict Scrutiny' to show that any proposed legislation or law can directly achieve the asserted public safety objective with minimal infringement of civil rights.

As gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters our greatest faith in the future is that the SCOTUS rules that Strict Scrutiny MUST apply to all federal, state and local gun regulations.
 
NW Custom Firearms
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Sporting Systems
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Cerberus Training Group
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Southwest Firearms Forum
Project Appleseed

Upcoming Events

22 Rimfire Challenge
Redmond , OR
Appleseed Patriots Day Event
Dundee , OR
Rimfire Challenge May 8th @ DRRC
Eagle Creek , OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top Bottom