False and bias poll found that 81% of Oregonians are in favor of BG checks?

[Father of four]

I trust the supreme court judges opinions on "constitutionality" as much as I trust that poll.

 

[chariot13]

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of background checks on all gun sales, or if you fail to do a background check and the person you sell the gun to commits a crime with it, you get some of the backlash. If criminals can buy guns from private sellers without background checks and there's no comeback on the seller, then why bother with checks at all? It's only a $10 fee, and you can run one on the internet, so it's not exactly difficult.

5D, OK, so if I've already got several clips that hold more than 10 rounds, do I get paid fto hand them in? This would make several of my guns illegal, as they don't come with 10-round of smaller magazines. If I thought this had a chance in hell of actually passing I'd buy spare magazines with cash.

Question 5E, I'm confused by this question. Doesn't this cover all types of semi-automatic pistols and DA revolvers?

5F, pointless, people will still CC if they want, unless you initiate a search at the door. If people are planning to shoot someone at the school, a ban isn't going to stop them.

I noticed your web browser mistook northwestfirearms.com for your ceasefire club.....Other than that I'm ok with you using your 1st amendment rights to wishfully infringe upon the 2nd amendment. And even when any of your 'sensible' laws of infringment happens to pass, ill be glad to break those unconstitutional laws.

 

[jluck]

Statistics are like a bikini, What they reveal is interesting and what they hide is vital.

 

[BroncoFan]

If this is what Kayla Wade is talking about you should send her another letter explaining 504 people is not a representative sample of the State of Oregon. And 46% of those asked were from the Portland Metro area. I hate polls.

http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/OREGONIAN GUNS TOPLINE_wm.pdf

Since all the legislators' end game is to control who owns guns it would seem to be question 1 settles the matter, if they choose to rely on this particular poll.

 

[tkdguy]

I keep seeing references to this study but haven't seen it.

Shoddy statistics are common. I don't trust any survey until after I look at how it was conducted.

polling firm in Seattle. Elroy's client list is dominated by many favorite democratic leaning institutions.

See:

OregonLive published 2/7/13; months after Sandy Hook and Clackamus Town Shooting

See: Oregon gun owners not monolithic in their views on new firearms restri...

<broken link removed>...

This survey was also published by Blue Oregon.

 

[Eugenian]

I noticed your web browser mistook northwestfirearms.com for your ceasefire club.....Other than that I'm ok with you using your 1st amendment rights to wishfully infringe upon the 2nd amendment. And even when any of your 'sensible' laws of infringment happens to pass, ill be glad to break those unconstitutional laws.

Huh?

 

[U201491]

polling firm in Seattle. Elroy's client list is dominated by many favorite democratic leaning institutions.

See:

OregonLive published 2/7/13; months after Sandy Hook and Clackamus Town Shooting

See: Oregon gun owners not monolithic in their views on new firearms restri...

<broken link removed>...

This survey was also published by Blue Oregon.

Link broken?

 

[3MTA3]

Link broken?

Interesting - it worked a short while ago for me, now it doesn't work.

 

[deen_ad]

Done in Feb of 2013.
Most respondents were Democratic.


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Darknight]

I agree that the poll is skewed, and invalid. Conducting a survey that is supposed to represent Oregon, but only doing it in Portland, is clearly not a representative sample of the state as a whole. They should be ashamed to try to foist this as a meaningful statistic.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of background checks on all gun sales, or if you fail to do a background check and the person you sell the gun to commits a crime with it, you get some of the backlash. If criminals can buy guns from private sellers without background checks and there's no comeback on the seller, then why bother with checks at all? It's only a $10 fee, and you can run one on the internet, so it's not exactly difficult.

5D, OK, so if I've already got several clips that hold more than 10 rounds, do I get paid fto hand them in? This would make several of my guns illegal, as they don't come with 10-round of smaller magazines. If I thought this had a chance in hell of actually passing I'd buy spare magazines with cash.

Question 5E, I'm confused by this question. Doesn't this cover all types of semi-automatic pistols and DA revolvers?

5F, pointless, people will still CC if they want, unless you initiate a search at the door. If people are planning to shoot someone at the school, a ban isn't going to stop them.

At the risk of being burned at the stake for saying it; I don't think a $10/BGC is a big deal either, unless it had to go through an FFL and you had to pay a transfer fee as well.

Currently a $10/BGC can be done while selling face-to-face as well, but it comes with risks. If I get a BGC done at a business, they are licensed, bonded and insured and required to protect your personal information against identity theft. They can also be held responsible if your information were to be compromised and it was their fault.

On the flip side, if you give up all your personal information to an individual during a face-to-face sell, they have no obligation to protect your information and are not licensed, bonded and insured or under any obligation to even tell you they lost or had your information stolen.

As to the poll, I think that for the Portlandia area it is correct. The multitude in Portland like all the useless crap laws so they feel safe and have more time to check thier facebook, twitter, instgram, etc.. Unfortunately for the rest of us that live in the real world, we are outnumbered by them.

Here is some numbers for you: 100% of the useless crap laws we have here in Oregon came from Portland. 80% of the idiots that voted them in came from or were in contact with someone from Komunist Kali. I did the poll myself +/- 1%, because no one is perfect.

 

[U201491]

At the risk of being burned at the stake for saying it; I don't think a $10/BGC is a big deal either, unless it had to go through an FFL and you had to pay a transfer fee as well.

Currently a $10/BGC can be done while selling face-to-face as well, but it comes with risks. If I get a BGC done at a business, they are licensed, bonded and insured and required to protect your personal information against identity theft. They can also be held responsible if your information were to be compromised and it was their fault.

On the flip side, if you give up all your personal information to an individual during a face-to-face sell, they have no obligation to protect your information and are not licensed, bonded and insured or under any obligation to even tell you they lost or had your information stolen.

As to the poll, I think that for the Portlandia area it is correct. The multitude in Portland like all the useless crap laws so they feel safe and have more time to check thier facebook, twitter, instgram, etc.. Unfortunately for the rest of us that live in the real world, we are outnumbered by them.

Here is some numbers for you: 100% of the useless crap laws we have here in Oregon came from Portland. 80% of the idiots that voted them in came from or were in contact with someone from Komunist Kali. I did the poll myself +/- 1%, because no one is perfect.

We need a burn at the stake emoticon for that first part.

 

[The Heretic]

Really? Tell that to the 5-9 of the supreme court judges.

I am very disappointed in the SCOTUS - they have a long history (centuries) of mostly going on precedent instead of reason, and not understanding the Constitution or its history or the philosophy behind it. After all, what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? All of it apparently.

My point was that the majority, whether the population or a court or a jury, voting against Natural Rights, doesn't make their decisions right. Just because 81% of the population believe something, doesn't make what they believe right.

After all, 36% to 56% of the US population, 80 to 150 million people, depending on the survey, believe little grey bipods fly around in UFOs abducting people and mutilating cows.

 

[The Heretic]

The problem with Oregon BGCs for firearms is that you are required to supply information about the firearm being transferred - including the serial number.

A law requiring a BGC for all private transfers is a law requiring de-facto registration as those serial numbers will then be logged in a database and kept indefinitely despite any assurances that they will be deleted eventually.

 

[U201491]

I am very disappointed in the SCOTUS - they have a long history (centuries) of mostly going on precedent instead of reason, and not understanding the Constitution or its history or the philosophy behind it. After all, what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? All of it apparently.

My point was that the majority, whether the population or a court or a jury, voting against Natural Rights, doesn't make their decisions right. Just because 81% of the population believe something, doesn't make what they believe right.

After all, 36% to 56% of the US population, 80 to 150 million people, depending on the survey, believe little grey bipods fly around in UFOs abducting people and mutilating cows.

Its the absolute misleading fabricated number 81% that is bs.
It is reversed of what all the real polls state.

 

[chariot13]

Couple of you are deflecting your anti-gun bias by saying $10 is not a big deal for a BGC, so it must be ok. The money isn't the problem, your lack of principal towards maintaining less infringments is.

 

[oli700]

The poll actually doesn't surprise me one bit.....it only takes a quick browsing through the for sale section in this very web site to see plenty of sellers right here won't sell their firearms unless someone does one.
"Meet at FFL" or they won't sell to someone that doesn't have a concealed carry permit, not surprised one bit.

 

[sailorfej]

The poll actually doesn’t surprise me one bit…..it only takes a quick browsing through the for sale section in this very web site to see plenty of sellers right here won’t sell their firearms unless someone does one.
"Meet at FFL" or they won’t sell to someone that doesn’t have a concealed carry permit, not surprised one bit.

This is actually a great argument against having a law that requires it. Responsible law abiding gun owners are already doing their best to make sure they don't sell their guns to a criminal. The kind of people who don't care if the guy they are selling their gun to is a criminal, probably are not going to worry if the manner in which they are selling to the guy complies with the law. i.e. criminals will be criminals no matter what the law is.

The biggest issue with universal background checks, is that it is not enforceable without registration, so either it will not be enforced, or they will maintain all the gun "transaction records" indefinitely, which regardless of what lawmakers say will be a firearms ownership database, in other words registration.

If unenforced, it is even worse. Every law we pass that we know can not or will not be enforced, weakens all laws, and therefore the rule of law in general. We already literally thousands of laws (including the existing gun background check laws) that are not enforced. So we are already teaching citizens, police, judges, and government bureaucrats that the what laws they choose to comply with/enforce is a matter of convenience and personal judgement. This has very serious repercussions for the long term stability of the United States

 

[JavaDude]

=More like "81% of female Oregonians that are standing in a Portland Starbucks, are 23-27 years old and Democrat" are in favor of more BGC's.

I agree with Jbett98.

 

[chariot13]

This is actually a great argument against having a law that requires it. Responsible law abiding gun owners are already doing their best to make sure they don't sell their guns to a criminal. The kind of people who don't care if the guy they are selling their gun to is a criminal, probably are not going to worry if the manner in which they are selling to the guy complies with the law. i.e. criminals will be criminals no matter what the law is.

The biggest issue with universal background checks, is that it is not enforceable without registration, so either it will not be enforced, or they will maintain all the gun "transaction records" indefinitely, which regardless of what lawmakers say will be a firearms ownership database, in other words registration.

If unenforced, it is even worse. Every law we pass that we know can not or will not be enforced, weakens all laws, and therefore the rule of law in general. We already literally thousands of laws (including the existing gun background check laws) that are not enforced. So we are already teaching citizens, police, judges, and government bureaucrats that the what laws they choose to comply with/enforce is a matter of convenience and personal judgement. This has very serious repercussions for the long term stability of the United States

Good! I'm glad when laws go unenforced. What you're complaining about "what police choose to enforce" thats called officer discretion and its more relevant to freedom than any law will ever be. Taking away their choice to enforce via their own discretion, is akin to having robots enforcing laws. An individual citizens discretion, to willingly choose to follow or break a law is also important and needed for what little freedom is left.

 

[hollowbase]

For me the problem lies in the fact that the details of this background check are not out to general public. They hear background check and why would you not support that. Who wants criminals and mentally unbalanced individuals out there with guns and we can stop that with background checks. Well we all know, meaning us here on the forum that it won't stop somebody from getting a gun. The system will be circumvented. The details of what the background check will really do has to be made public. If all you are trying to accomplish is checking the background of somebody you want to transfer a firearm to to determine if they are criminal or crazy you only need to supply the information of who is trying to get the firearm. What the firearm is is totally irrelevant, as is who is doing the transfer. I don't believe the people are fully aware of what is required in this bill. If letters were written to the newspapers detailing what this background check really required and how it affected the hunter out there who is trying to finance a new hunting rifle by selling his neighbor his old one or how you have to jump through hoops and be included in a database because you're trying to upgrade your shotgun we might have a lot more people letting their elected representatives know that this is not good. We here in the forum are probably some of the most informed people in the state about what is going on in regards to gun control and who is trying it. We need to get the word out to the more casual gun owners.