Gun control: Wyden backs bill expanding background checks

[crstrode]

Anyone that has ever voted for Wyden is completely in the dark.

 

[Bob1259]

Oregon | General
this is the list I go by when I vote,the nra will endorse lying idiots who will screw gunowners,like boquist.

 

[Inquisitor]

They know they cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment so they want to infringe it out of existence. Their goal is to make firearm purchases more costly, onerous and restrictive for law-abiding firearm purchasers.

The Democratic politicians and leaders of those groups supporting gun control are not stupid (no matter what we say, we actually know that).

They know that over 22,000 gun laws have not been effective in reducing violent crimes. They know that making illegal acts even more illegal by adding increased penalties will not work. They know that criminals do not believe that they will be caught and convicted, so the severity of the penalty is of limited consequence. They know that if the severity of the penalty were actually effective, more countries and states would have the death penalty and there would be no murders in the world. Yet they continue to use good sounding but meaningless terms like "tighter gun control" as if they have found law number 22,001 that will stop violent crime.

They know that the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[Ratified 12/15/1791] and they know what that Amendment actually means. They know that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Columbine or 14 other mass shootings while it was in effect. They know the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. Yet, they propose new bans with even broader definitions of cosmetic features to define as many weapons as possible. The details they have provided about the new weapons bans they are proposing, are increasingly broad in their criteria and are purposely "poorly worded" such that they will eventually result in the registration, then banning, and then confiscation of all firearms. They invent scary-sounding but meaningless terms like "rapid firing assault weapons" to describe modern semiautomatic firearms. These groups refuse to provide any supporting detail on meaningful analysis of the possible effectiveness and/or legality of those proposals, other than "we think maybe it might work, but we cannot submit any no proof that it will have any effect". They know all this and yet they continue to propagate known lies, half-truths and misleading statements to garner purely emotional support from voters for their "reasonable" restrictions on firearms and ammunition without any real rational justification or understanding.

Senator Diane Feinstein said that they have been working on an update of the "Assault Weapons Ban" for a year. So it appears they were just waiting for the next excuse to introduce it. However, after Sandy Hook, she released a draft of this bill that was seen to be so blatantly unconstitutional that she rewrote the entire bill before introducing it.

If they know all this, then what is their true purpose? A review of the legislation proposed by the Democrats at all levels of government clearly shows that the ultimate objective of the "gun control" movement is to ban all firearms. It is also clear that no discussion will change that ultimate goal. They are clearly not trying to solve the problems of violent crime. Instead it appears that they actually need those horrific events to continue to occur so that they can use them as an excuse to further their agenda. What is not clear is their ultimate purpose.

 

[jvbutter]

Oregon | General
this is the list I go by when I vote,the nra will endorse lying idiots who will screw gunowners,like boquist.

Your list isn't very helpful, It only shows how anti gun Oregon state and local legislators / senators / governors actually are. Oh that's because Oregon is anti gun, anti car. What reasonable choices do we have.... Not many.
thanks for the link. good to bookmark.

 

[Caveman Jim]

The Democratic politicians and leaders of those groups supporting gun control are not stupid (no matter what we say, we actually know that).

They know that over 22,000 gun laws have not been effective in reducing violent crimes. They know that making illegal acts even more illegal by adding increased penalties will not work. They know that criminals do not believe that they will be caught and convicted, so the severity of the penalty is of limited consequence. They know that if the severity of the penalty were actually effective, more countries and states would have the death penalty and there would be no murders in the world. Yet they continue to use good sounding but meaningless terms like "tighter gun control" as if they have found law number 22,001 that will stop violent crime.

They know that the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[Ratified 12/15/1791] and they know what that Amendment actually means. They know that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Columbine or 14 other mass shootings while it was in effect. They know the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. Yet, they propose new bans with even broader definitions of cosmetic features to define as many weapons as possible. The details they have provided about the new weapons bans they are proposing, are increasingly broad in their criteria and are purposely "poorly worded" such that they will eventually result in the registration, then banning, and then confiscation of all firearms. They invent scary-sounding but meaningless terms like "rapid firing assault weapons" to describe modern semiautomatic firearms. These groups refuse to provide any supporting detail on meaningful analysis of the possible effectiveness and/or legality of those proposals, other than "we think maybe it might work, but we cannot submit any no proof that it will have any effect". They know all this and yet they continue to propagate known lies, half-truths and misleading statements to garner purely emotional support from voters for their "reasonable" restrictions on firearms and ammunition without any real rational justification or understanding.

Senator Diane Feinstein said that they have been working on an update of the "Assault Weapons Ban" for a year. So it appears they were just waiting for the next excuse to introduce it. However, after Sandy Hook, she released a draft of this bill that was seen to be so blatantly unconstitutional that she rewrote the entire bill before introducing it.

If they know all this, then what is their true purpose? A review of the legislation proposed by the Democrats at all levels of government clearly shows that the ultimate objective of the "gun control" movement is to ban all firearms. It is also clear that no discussion will change that ultimate goal. They are clearly not trying to solve the problems of violent crime. Instead it appears that they actually need those horrific events to continue to occur so that they can use them as an excuse to further their agenda. What is not clear is their ultimate purpose.

Here's the thing, these rabid anti-gun (constitution) hide behind the "D" but are really Progressive-Liberals. They should be listed as a third party & not D's.
Let it be known that I am in no way, shape or form advocating the exoneration of D's and what they have done to this country in the last 5 decades.

 

[tenitcher]

Wow. It's amazing how fast these guys can lose their position based on screwing around with my rights. I read this, and now I will never vote for the guy again. What's he even thinking? The bill would never pass the senate anyways! Why lose the votes, then?


Gun control: Wyden backs bill expanding background checks
Gun control: Wyden backs bill expanding background checks
Gun control: Wyden backs bill expanding background checks

I can not imagine why anyone would vote for him, I lives in NY, his wife lives and votes in NY,& his children live in NY. He has always been anti gun. Jeff Smerkly is just as bad.