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

[Foamcups]

Since Dems will willingly toe the line my Christmas present would be for the Republicans to push to repeal certain liberties the left take for granted. Push it right through. As well as make them felonies as the Dems like to attach to fake assault weapons.

Such as?

I mean, if that's the case, why not bubblegumcan the whole Constitution while we're at it?

 

[cigars]

Remember what @AndyinEverson says: Be excellent to each other....

I would suggest that it's time for the ignore list. It works. It works best when I am on it.

 

[cigars]

They know EXACTLY what they are doing. It doesn't have to work, they don't even want it to work. It just has to sound good enough to get the votes out of their ignorant followers which is the ONLY thing they are after. It's unnatural for us, but you have to think like a slimey traitorous PoS politician to understand them. I've exposed myself to so much of it over the last 3 years, I'm finally starting to get it.

Especially true in the state of Oregon.

 

[Voidshot9]

I wish we could shake some sense into the drafters of such garbage like this ballot measure. An assault weapons ban doesn't decrease crime. All it does is remove something that they fear, and that fear is based on a profound lack of perspective.

It doesn't matter to them that murders involving rifles (yes, all rifles, from .22s to AR-15s) account for less than 3% of total firearm related murders. They ask "why does anyone NEED an AR-15?" and disregard the presumption in that very question; it is none of their business why I need something.

Alan Korwin summarizes it best, doesn't he? Ownership of property in America is not based on need. That's the communist model: "To each according to his need." You don't NEED 10 pairs of shoes. You don't NEED a refrigerator the size of a closet. You don't NEED a sports car. You don't NEED a gigantic big screen TV. And there's nobody in charge of deciding what you "need". They can't decide that "you need this" and so you can have it, or "you don't need that" and so you can't have it. The question makes that presumption; Why does anyone believe that they can ask, "why do you need this?", decide that you don't need it, so that they can then take it away..

The people proposing a ban don't do it based on facts, they do it out of an emotional need to "do something". They don't even understand the reasons why AR-15 owners actually WANT them. We have millions of people across this country that have an AR-15, and they ENJOY having an AR-15. And why is that the case? Do these people even want to know? Do they care? Do they think it's so we can all look "tacti-cool" or something?

Do they even understand that it's the same reason the police and military want them? Because it's a great gun, it works! It's one of the finest rifles made in America. It's accurate, it's reliable, you can maintain it easily, it's reasonably priced, it's easy to get parts for, it's easy to customize, it's got interchangeable parts, you can clean it easily, you can fix it easily, and if it jams it's easy to unjam. How much more do you need in a gun? And why do they think my AR-15 is any more dangerous than any other firearm I own?

The thing that scares me is, this ballot measure could get enough signatures just in the Portland area and get on the ballot and actually pass all based on completely unreasonable bias. And they would have done something that A) doesn't decrease crime, and B) doesn't increase security.

Time to move to another state...

 

[Foamcups]

I wish we could shake some sense into the drafters of such garbage like this ballot measure. An assault weapons ban doesn't decrease crime. All it does is remove something that they fear, and that fear is based on a profound lack of perspective.

It doesn't matter to them that murders involving rifles (yes, all rifles, from .22s to AR-15s) account for less than 3% of total firearm related murders. They ask "why does anyone NEED an AR-15?" and disregard the presumption in that very question; it is none of their business why I need something.

Alan Korwin summarizes it best, doesn't he? Ownership of property in America is not based on need. That's the communist model: "To each according to his need." You don't NEED 10 pairs of shoes. You don't NEED a refrigerator the size of a closet. You don't NEED a sports car. You don't NEED a gigantic big screen TV. And there's nobody in charge of deciding what you "need". They can't decide that "you need this" and so you can have it, or "you don't need that" and so you can't have it. The question makes that presumption; Why does anyone believe that they can ask, "why do you need this?", decide that you don't need it, so that they can then take it away..

The people proposing a ban don't do it based on facts, they do it out of an emotional need to "do something". They don't even understand the reasons why AR-15 owners actually WANT them. We have millions of people across this country that have an AR-15, and they ENJOY having an AR-15. And why is that the case? Do these people even want to know? Do they care? Do they think it's so we can all look "tacti-cool" or something?

Do they even understand that it's or the same reason the police and military want them? Because it's a great gun, it works! It's one of the finest rifles made in America. It's accurate, it's reliable, you can maintain it easily, it's reasonably priced, it's easy to get parts for, it's easy to customize, it's got interchangeable parts, you can clean it easily, you can fix it easily, and if it jams it's easy to unjam. How much more do you need in a gun? And why do they think my AR-15 is any more dangerous than any other firearm I own?

The thing that scares me is, this ballot measure could get enough signatures just in the Portland area and get on the ballot and actually pass all based on completely unreasonable bias. And they would have done something that A) doesn't decrease crime, and B) doesn't increase security.

Time to move to another state...

Well said.

 

[cigars]

I consider myself a Liberal, even though that always seems to be a dirty word here. But this is garbage. Total and complete crock of bubblegum.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. A true liberal respects the free thought of others. The term "liberal" has been hijacked by the progressives and leftists.

 

[Foamcups]

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. A true liberal respects the free thought of others. The term "liberal" has been hijacked by the progressives and leftists.

Yes, and all you conservatives really are trying to bring it back by using it an an insult. Great strategy.

 

[cigars]

Yes, and all you conservatives really are trying to bring it back by using it an an insult. Great strategy.

Be careful there. True liberals and conservatives intersect in a lot of areas. Like I said, the term "liberal" has been hijacked over the last couple of decades. There's a lot of social brainwashing going on. There's nothing insulting about being a liberal. On the same note, don't confuse true conservatives with those on the far right. Social media loves to confuse, conflate and cause anarchy amongst American's.

 

[XManSV]

If it gets to ballot measure it will pass. This is simple, if they get the signatures, we're F'd. Unless somebody can spring for the lawyers to fight it as unconstitutional.
According to the constitution we are supposed to be able to defend the state. In these modern days against a modern invasion, we would need ARs at least.
Wonder if anything could be done using that angle?

 

[awshoot]

...and if we ban "assault weapons" no one will be shot anymore, that's how we stopped people from doing drugs... this is why liberal logic is considered a mental illness.

The drug war was, rhetorically at least, more a Republican thing -- the thing is, Democrats and Republicans are basically the same with some edge issues they use to fire up the troops -- the drug war being far too profitable for both, it will never end. If your issue is getting us involved in stupid foreign wars for the profit of a few at the expense of the many -- Ds and Rs are indistinguishable. If you hate how Wall St and Banksters have figured out how to privatize profits and socialize losses -- nobody with a D or an R after their name is gonna do anything about it except perhaps make some vague speech -- they're feeding at the same trough. And every couple years or so, they put on some show for the public and pretend to be opponents, but when you get down to brass tacks, there's vastly more in common than is different between them.

 

[XManSV]

The drug war was, rhetorically at least, more a Republican thing -- the thing is, Democrats and Republicans are basically the same with some edge issues they use to fire up the troops -- the drug war being far too profitable for both, it will never end. If your issue is getting us involved in stupid foreign wars for the profit of a few at the expense of the many -- Ds and Rs are indistinguishable. If you hate how Wall St and Banksters have figured out how to privatize profits and socialize losses -- nobody with a D or an R after their name is gonna do anything about it except perhaps make some vague speach -- they're feeding at the same trough. And every couple years or so, they put on some show for the public and pretend to be opponents, but when you get down to brass tacks, there's vastly more in common than is different between them.

We are betrayed....

 

[Foamcups]

Be careful there. True liberals and conservatives intersect in a lot of areas. Like I said, the term "liberal" has been hijacked over the last couple of decades. There's a lot of social brainwashing going on. There's nothing insulting about being a liberal. On the same note, don't confuse true conservatives with those on the far right. Social media loves to confuse, conflate and cause anarchy amongst American's.

Fair enough.

 

[cigars]

Fair enough.

We're all in this together.

 

[Voidshot9]

Be careful there. True liberals and conservatives intersect in a lot of areas. Like I said, the term "liberal" has been hijacked over the last couple of decades. There's a lot of social brainwashing going on. There's nothing insulting about being a liberal. On the same note, don't confuse true conservatives with those on the far right. Social media loves to confuse, conflate and cause anarchy amongst American's.

You hit the nail on the head. Personally I consider myself a moderate. And yet the politics in this country almost demand that I choose a side and try to vilify the other side. Why?

I can't stand left's policy on gun control issues and I cannot stand the right's policy on women's personal, private health issues either. But I do like my clean air and clean water, so I can't be in "that" party that would do away with ALL regulation if they had the chance.

What does that make me? I don't even care. I think for myself. I weigh issues on their merits. And I've got friends on both sides.

 

[Foamcups]

We're all in this together.

Agree. 100%.

 

[cigars]

You hit the nail on the head. Personally I consider myself a moderate. And yet the politics in this country almost demand that I choose a side and try to vilify the other side. Why?

I can't stand left's policy on gun control issues and I cannot stand the right's policy on women's personal, private health issues either. But I do like my clean air and clean water, so I can't be in "that" party that would do away with ALL regulation if they had the chance.

What does that make me? I don't even care. I think for myself. I weigh issues on their merits. And I've got friends on both sides.

We must hang together or surely we will all hang separately...
Or something like that.

 

[Foamcups]

So, this begs the question...in the unlikely event that this passes and becomes law...what are we to do?

 

[Voidshot9]

So, this begs the question...in the unlikely event that this passes and becomes law...what are we to do?

Other than move to Arizona? Good question. A question I'm struggling with.

I suppose the right answer might be to get involved with the political process through donating to those organizations willing to fight this with a lawsuit against the state.

 

[awshoot]

So, this begs the question...in the unlikely event that this passes and becomes law...what are we to do?

To be an "assault weapon" the firearm MUST have a detachable mag and one other feature -- meaning that a fixed mag rifle is NOT an "AW". For any given weight or bulk, you can carry more ammo in stripper clips than in detachable magazines. Nothing says mechanically attached -- perhaps even hinged like I've seen my friend's Browning bolt-action -- mags need only hold 5 or 10 rounds. I could also see a system of dual springing the mags -- a heavy spring to do the job of feeding the rounds while firing, but could be depressed and caught at the floorplate while a second spring keeps the follower up against the fresh rounds as they are stripped off the clip -- the second spring could be light so little effort is needed in stripping but with enough spring to hold the follower in place and allow the stripped rounds to properly fill the mag.

Anyway -- if it passes, someone will get very rich selling work-arounds, law abiding citizens will curse and mutter, and the criminals will gain an edge in firepower. The world be no safer.

 

[Foamcups]

Yeah...maybe start looking in Idaho I guess. Sucks, I like it here.