Oregon Assault Weapon, Handgun, & Magazine Ban - Initiative 43

[DuneHopper]

There are 36 pages on this topic and still a clear cut description is hard to see.
The language on this particular ballot proposal is full of poor descriptive language only designed to
confuse voters and gun owners alike. Now anyone can ask for a ballot measure to be considered if they follow
the legal procedures . These are the several unconstitutional parts of this ballot proposal.

Now I was going to copy paste this proposal errors and violations but pretty much every section of this ballot proposal violates our 2nd Amendment Rights. Either by control, storage , access and gun registration.

Its important to realize that it was not all that long ago firearms were not required to have serial numbers.
Had this not been changed these laws and any other law could be easily struck down. I was six years old when this became
law and firearms had been around at that time in this country around 200 years.

Its sad our attorney general will no doubt give it a green light regardless of any civil rights it violates.

 

[newtonpo]

Easy to do when you have such fine upstanding citizens as ol Herb here. Great guy. But nuke the thread because I'm an evil lib. Sorry.

The rub is if you actually are a "lib",you are essentially also the problem.You would have voted for the machine that drives this sort of capricious overreaching garbage to become then,law. Don't see how that can wash any other way,unless you're a lib in name only. Just thinking out loud here, but you seem duplicitous.Saying,then that you will stand by this group when they come for our guns, but also having in part created the very enemy you now claim to be ready to stand against. Clarity in the expression of your real mind in this forum might serve you more effectively than insulting various of it's members because they wonder some along those same lines.

 

[RatherDashing]

The rub is if you actually are a "lib",you are essentially also the problem.You would have voted for the machine that drives this sort of capricious overreaching garbage to become then,law. Don't see how that can wash any other way,unless you're a lib in name only. Just thinking out loud here, but you seem duplicitous.Saying,then that you will stand by this group when they come for our guns, but also having in part created the very enemy you now claim to be ready to stand against. Clarity in the expression of your real mind in this forum might serve you more effectively than insulting various of it's members because they wonder some along those same lines.

It doesn't mean he has voted for any of those people. I'm much like him; we're a drop in a bucket. I voted for mostly all Republicans last time around, and I am a registered Democrat.

 

[newtonpo]

I'm what was termed before we were no longer of any relevance to the new Democratic party,a "Blue Dog",Democrat myself. That is not at its core, a "Liberal". When the party took that sharp left we parted ways.

 

[Foamcups]

The rub is if you actually are a "lib",you are essentially also the problem.You would have voted for the machine that drives this sort of capricious overreaching garbage to become then,law. Don't see how that can wash any other way,unless you're a lib in name only. Just thinking out loud here, but you seem duplicitous.Saying,then that you will stand by this group when they come for our guns, but also having in part created the very enemy you now claim to be ready to stand against. Clarity in the expression of your real mind in this forum might serve you more effectively than insulting various of it's members because they wonder some along those same lines.

It doesn't mean he has voted for any of those people. I'm much like him; we're a drop in a bucket. I voted for mostly all Republicans last time around, and I am a registered Democrat.

See above^

 

[newtonpo]

I see just fine,thanks,and read the comment when it was posted. My response remains the same. You either support the platform put forward by the party that reflects your professed political leanings, (in your case a liberal), or you are "something other than", or more broadly define the term, and if that leads to some rough head scratching by other guys you should be able to define that stance rather than throw down on said "scratcher". Exercising an acerbic or argumentative nature may explain it as well, don't know you,couldn't say.

 

[Foamcups]

I see just fine,thanks,and read the comment when it was posted. My response remains the same. You either support the platform put forward by the party that reflects your professed political leanings, (in your case a liberal), or you are "something other than", or more broadly define the term, and if that leads to some rough head scratching by other guys you should be able to define that stance rather than throw down on said "scratcher". Exercising an acerbic or argumentative nature may explain it as well, don't know you,couldn't say.

Ive defined myself throughout this 37 page thread. Thanks for your input though.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

This is starting to look less stupid:

Franklin Armory Reformation: Not a Rifle, Not a Shotgun, But a 'Firearm'

Not a rifle, not a pistol, not a shotgun. A "Firearm" without rifling, but straight cut grooves in barrel, so not a shotgun either.

At time I owned a Austrian rifle circa 1760's or so that had "straight cut grooves" in the bore...so this isn't really a new idea...by the way , it loaded and shot , just like any other flintlock rifle of the time period....Which actually was pretty Damn good...

Gun makers having been playing around with different types of rifling for a very long time.

Not arguing here...just pointing out a historic firearm fact....
Andy

 

[newtonpo]

Ive defined myself throughout this 37 page thread. Thanks for your input though.

Backatcha' buddy.

 

[Foamcups]

Backatcha' buddy.

Any time.

 

[newtonpo]

Backatcha' buddy.

 

[Maximum1]

We fight with each other while the other side is United against us.

Just say'n.

 

[Foamcups]

We fight with each other while the other side is United against us.

Just say'n.

We can argue a bit as long as we're all united against this nonsense.

 

[newtonpo]

We can argue a bit as long as we're all united against this nonsense.

Keeps the edge sharp. All good here. Got my 66 waiting catch you later.

 

[Foamcups]

Keeps the edge sharp. All good here. Got my 66 waiting catch you later.

Ta hombre.

 

[RailwayMan]

http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/042text.pdf

bubblegum that.

Thanks for the heads up. This is nuts. No compensation for destroying your $2,000 match rifle? Like the General responded to the Nazi General when told to surrender ... "Nuts!". He held out and kicked the Nazis butt. I see the same happening in America in response to these Bloomberg-financed schemes.

 

[CoastRange57]

There is 36 pages in this thread and how many ?? threads on this and all I see is a bunch of playground bit*hing. If this is the best that can be done, then get your guns ready to give up your guns. Take a look at this article and video and see why the left will win this war on our Civil Rights.

Deerfield, Illinois, just banned assault weapons. The penalty? Up to $1,000 a day. - CNN

 

[Looperman]

I will tell you whom everyone should talk with or send emails to. That is ODFW. Tell them to fight for us. They will lose out on all the under 21 group if they can't hunt alone. I started when I was 13. Now 66 years old. If I had to wait for an adult to take me I would have never been able to hunt. Also, how many will leave the state or just quit hunting if you can't take your 10/22 along for some fun..Or your trusty 9mm. How about Turkey Hunting. How many of you hunt with a semi auto shotgun.Send them and email today. Tell them they better start to fight on our side. We need everyone we can get. DO IT.

 

[Defense Minister]

Excellent call, Looperman! Remind them that some state revenue depends on hunters

 

[tkdguy]

March 26 at 8:27am
I did not write this but found it very knowledgeable.I did have permission, so as I did you can as well. FBI statistics in 2016

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It's time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."