Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Help me help us all with democrats(see inside for details)

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by korntera, May 20, 2011.

  1. korntera

    korntera Oregon Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    14
    So as some of you know I am a democrat along with a few others on this board, but I am slowly moving to the right. However this sunday its going to be a good thing I am a democrat. I am part of the Gun Owners Caucus of the democratic party of oregon and I am part of a panel in front of the state central committee on gun control. I am discussing gun owners and representing gun owners from around the state. So I need facts and statistics to back up my argument, some people there will be closed minded (as with any political party) and will argue with me and I will stay calm however the reason we are going in front of them is to better shape their views of guns and the positive light in which we(FMA members and other gun owners) hold guns and to let them see another side, outside of the violence they see on TV and read about in the paper.
    Here are the topics i am supposed to touch on and a few notes from me.

    Name & County you are from - Travis, Clackamas County
    Occupation/business. Are you a veteran?I own a successfull heating and air conditioning company with 16 employees
    Gun related hobbies or interests (hunting, target shooting, Cowboy Action Shooting, collecting, self-defense etc)Target shooting, firearm building and collection
    If you are willing to share where you fall on the political spectrum that would be great. Just mentioning a few other issues that you are for or against or by saying something like "Progressive", "Blue Dog", "Socialist" or whatever.This is all me and i will tell them as left leaning as possible to sound as much like them and as little like you guys lol.
    Where you stand on firearms issues. Some examples of things to talk about: CHL Record Privacy, CHL Reciprocity, "Assault Weapons" (this will have be defined), magazine capacity limits, etc. The idea is not to start a fight or argue with each other. The idea is to show diversity and speak calmly about our opinions. We have people in our caucus who will call black guns "Assault Rifles" and people in our Caucus with NFA guns, CHLs and or FFLs. The point is to show our diversity.I obviously have Machine Guns, Suppressors, "evil black rifles" high capacity magazines, a CHL so will be expressing why I have them and need some help defending why i should own 30 round mags and machine guns.

    Thanks for your comments in advance, please don't say stupid bubblegum, I am trying to help forward gun ownership and help democrats see what i see.
     
    Joe Link and (deleted member) like this.
  2. lowly monk

    lowly monk Beaverton, Oregon. Just a guy. Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    330
    Thanks korntera.
     
  3. elsullo

    elsullo Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    51
    Hey, THANKS for representing us! There are LOTS of Democrats who are pro-gun-freedom but relatively few who get involved in Party politics. Decades ago I was very active in the Party and know very well what a load of work it is to go to all of those meetings and speak out! It is creepy how few people acutally make decisions for the mass of voters, just those with the stamina and the resources to take the time to fight for ideas. Considering the cost of gasoline you are especially heroic these days! A couple of links to point out for pro-Second Amendment Democrats: Blue Steel Democrats and Gun Owners | Democratic Party of Oregon Keep up the good fight!............................elsullo
     
  4. buick455

    buick455 se portland Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    20
    Please be sure to let them know that just because they may not understand why we like our gun hobbies it doesn't make us wrong or crazy. I'm not into scuba diving or bungee jumping but I don't have a problem with those who are, and as far as I can tell target shooting seems like a pretty safe hobby.

    It's also nice to remind them that murder and armed robbery are already illegal and that doesn't seem to stop the criminals in any city no matter how strict the gun control laws are.

    One other point that is good to make is that since Australia and Great Britian passed their gun bans their gun crimes when up and I mean like WAY up.

    And please let them know that most ( I'm speaking for myself and my group of friends) of us are behind making aggrivated crimes that involve guns carry a much stiffer penalty. Also Firearm theft should carry such a severe penalty that if a meth head broke into my house they might steal my electronics and jewelry but my gun would be left in my night stand becuase there is no way they'd even touch it.

    Thank you for your time and your help.
     
  5. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,202
    Likes Received:
    4,416
    I am not a registered Democrat. However, in repeated discussions with those on the opposite side of the gun issue, whether they are 'pubs or dems, I find it valuable to restate and clarify the 2ndA. Especially the terms "keep and bear" as well as "shall not be infringed."

    Please, remind them that this is not an issue about hunting and/or "sporting arms." "Keep and bear" and "shall not be infringed" were not based on, or written for the purpose of hunting.
    Only through the misguided words of Mr. Ruger (that wanted to sell more revolvers) and a handful of others was that notion of hunting and magazine capacity brought into into the discussion.

    Please remind them that this is not an issue of whether or not a firearm is capable of holding one round or 30. "Arms" as stated in the 2ndA of the BoR, offered weapons that were equivalent to the best anyone, anywhere had. A state-of-the-art weapon for it's day. The founders had no problem with this, and most gun advocates believe that holds true today.
    If they had intended for the populace to be restricted to lesser arms, they would have said so. (the militia members can have a .50 cal musket, but others may only have a .45 cal musket,... Huh?) To say so, or even imply it in drafting legislation constitutes infringement.

    Please remind them that those that would/will break the law to possess/own a firearm, or use one to commit an additional crime, care not what today's OR tomorrow's laws say about guns. They have little/no regard for the laws concerning the right to be secure in one's home, with one's property (valuables) or one's right to life. They are interested in gaining a means of domination over their victims, for which they hold no respect or regard.
    Since they have proven their general disregard for these laws, and the moral decisions that our society used in their development, in what situation would/will they respect another law against illegal possession or use of a gun, ANY GUN?

    Per the above, when restrictive gun laws are passed they only impose that restriction on those who would obey the laws regarding life, property or security, and the willingness to defend same. Thus they only affect the law abiding and do nothing about criminal behavior, other than to embolden the criminal, as the criminal knows the law abiding have been disarmed. The crime rates of the cities with the strictest gun laws are proof of this.
    There is no honor in being a victim of a crime. There is no justification for forcing the citizenry to abandon the means to defend oneself.
    To those that say my wallet/car/home/property and DIGNITY is not worth a human life I say:
    There is certainly no honor, moral standing, nor should there EVER be a legal precedent, that can justify denying a 110lb woman the ability to defend herself against a 250lb rapist, or a mugger with a knife (club etc) that wants her wallet, and is willing to take her life to get it.
    Whether in her home on on the street.

    And just to throw out a hypothetical,...
    If the issue of gun ownership had never existed in the U.S., if there had NEVER been guns in the world, a law preventing their import/manufacture/possession might be useful.
    In world we inhabit today, the "Pandora's box" that is gun violence was opened long ago. The best one can hope for is to be prepared to unleash that level of violence, with moral standing, against the amoral criminal that would use it to victimize you.

    Whether one believes in gun ownership personally, isn't the issue.
    The ability of the average citizen to own and use a gun can be as much of a factor in crime deterrence as actually owning one.

    The armed and amoral criminal, certain that his potential victims have been disarmed, is the greatest threat to civilized society.

    How many muggings do you think there would be if EVERYONE was armed, and it was common knowledge?
    An armed society is after all, a polite society. Especially if the prowling mugger, rapist, robber isn't certain who is armed and who isn't.
    There has been, and will always be disparity in people's size and physical capabilities. If a legislator is looking to "level the playing field," gun ownership advocacy, with regard to crime deterrence, is a good place to start.

    Current gun laws outside of Chicago, WADC, (and other gun restrictive places) keep the potential criminal guessing.

    Lets keep it that way here in Oregon.

    [/soapbox]
    Thanks for taking this on Korntera!
     
    Garg, padd54, titsonritz and 13 others like this.
  6. korntera

    korntera Oregon Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    14
    Thanks for the support i am nervous but excited. I dont know if i will be in front of 500+ people or 15 decision makets but i figured either way it could only open minds if I speak well.
     
  7. Garg

    Garg east of portland metro Hold my beer..... watch this Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,188
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Jamie6.5
    Brilliant
    + 1000
     
  8. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Bring Kool-Aid they like that...

    KoolAidManShotgun.gif

    KoolAidManShotgun.gif
     
    Jamie6.5 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. buick455

    buick455 se portland Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    20
    I whole heartedly agree with the founders and their (our) second amendment I absolutly agree with Jamie6.5 but for the purpose of discussing gun rights with the "other side" remember that they for the most part think that they are as wise and educated as the founders were and they are sure that they know better in this day and age.

    When speaking to these people you will have to keep in mind that they have already villified you (without reason) and if you preach to them they will disregaurd what you say.

    this is just like debate club

    * speak in plan english and know your audience ( they don't know anything about guns)
    * speak to thier common sense side and use analogies that they under stand
    * keep your comments positive
    * keep your arguments short

    I really wish yo the best of luck
     
  10. korntera

    korntera Oregon Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    14
    This is why I agreed to do this. I think in tgeir terms and can hopefully relate more to them. There is even a gay gun owner on this panel so it should show a lot of diversity that Democrats like. I also do sales for my company so it really shouldnt be that different i am.just selling a belief i.stead of a product.
     
  11. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Can you list the names of those who make up the "state central committee on gun control"?
     
  12. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Just what Jamie stated is the premise I would go by as a foundation starter- the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY Amendment that states "...shall not be infringed".

    Why is that? That is because they knew their would be some unforseeable instance for restricting your 1st Amendment rights (like not having the right to scream "FIRE!" or "BOMB!" in a crowded theater just for jest). They realized that rights should have limitations....obviously the founding fathers never dreamed of nuclear devices and rocket propelled grenades- but they did forsee a government overstepping it's boundries from a Republic back to a Kingdom dictatorship. Their solution? Alow the states to have unorganized (i.e. not controlled by the government) militias. But what would the point be in having a militia if they weren't allowed to have the same firearms as the military themselves?

    The point of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government using the military against them to enforce their own rules and laws. If all the people were armed, then you cannot control the people- it is the will of the people that controls the government (i.e. "Consent of the Governed").

    As sad as it is- the government should fear the people. They should fear that if they go outside the will of the people, the people will revolt and reestablish a new government. This isn't treason, mind you, but the will of the people establishing a just government based on their morals for a functioning Republic.

    I'm not going to get into political debate over this, but this is the entire reason for the constitution. The right to reestablish a just government if felt unjust. The right to protest, the right to carry a gun, the right for a jury of your peers- all designed to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government set on power and greed to control the people.

    I realize I might sound like a nut to you Dems....but in 1776, I garantee you I'd be labeled a patriot for voicing such concerns by our founding fathers (and a traitor to those supporting the King of England).

    As stated before, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or target pratice or even self defense....it's much broader than that. It is the defense of our Republic.
     
    deadeye and (deleted member) like this.
  13. Garg

    Garg east of portland metro Hold my beer..... watch this Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,188
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Well... on that note, that one is out the window. Which I happen to disagree with, and also, I am a dem.

    If we were to have equal parity with our current armed forces, the BATFE would be missing a lot of $200 fees.
    Personally I think the BATFE should be dismantled, but that's another discussion.
     
  14. joken

    joken Corvallis Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    523
    You must have been raised in a democratic family. A gun toting business owner sure doesn't fit the liberal stereotype. Thanks for the good work . I hope you help us get rid of obama. Ken
     
  15. Garg

    Garg east of portland metro Hold my beer..... watch this Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,188
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Wow Ken. What has Obama done to you? I'm all ears.....
     
  16. joken

    joken Corvallis Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    523
    I don't want to get booted off this forum, but how about what he did to Israel as his most recent example of ineptitude. It's only 6 am so I don't know what he will screw up today. The list is long and includes unprecedented spending in which much of the money went to his supporters. Closing my local Chevy dealer still ticks me off. How's about calling America a muslim nation? How about a list of lies? Sorry man, I have some guns to work on and garden to plant if it ever stops raining.
     
  17. slingshot1943

    slingshot1943 salem or Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    321
    The dems are killing with SCOTUS appointments that always vote anti gun.
     
  18. deadeye

    deadeye Albany,OR. Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    The $200 is a tax for what should be a right to have. I believe it was the government fearing the citizens that caused the federal rules rather than the few instinces machine guns were used for criminal acts during prohibition.
     
    Garg and (deleted member) like this.
  19. onceblind

    onceblind nwOR New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a really cool opportunity that you have, I had no idea the democratic party even had a caucus which was pro gun rights. If I had the chance to do that I would also definitely make it my goal no matter what to stay as calm and rational as possible, and remember that they see this issue from a completely different viewpoint. They've probably heard your arguments before and apparently have not been convinced by them, and in order to change their ideas about gun rights they would need to have the whole thought paradigm changed, which will not be easy.

    The issue essentially revolves around liberty, so that is what my arguments would have to revolve around. One of the basic ideas at the founding of this country was that we were to have the liberty to live in whatever way we saw fit. I think if that simple idea could register in their minds, that might even be enough to swing them to the other side of this issue. They apparently do not really look at the issue from this standpoint, and I doubt the idea of liberty is ever really in the forefront of their thinking (or they just basically don't agree with it), or they would already view the discussion differently. Do we have liberty or not? Ask them that. At what point do we say a person no longer has the right to liberty? Only when their action causes harm to other people. Way back in the new testament Paul (I think), in interpreting the old testament law given to the Jews, said the law was not given for the righteous but the unrighteous. The same (fantastic) principle can be used for this discussion, the law is not given for the law abiding but for the criminal. What does that mean? There would be no reason to put a law into effect if it were not for people who did wrong things. We already have as many laws as you can think of saying that the harming of other people is wrong, whether with a gun or with your fists (can't really outlaw fists), and the people who are going to obey those laws will, and those who won't won't. Any further law is really pointless, and will only take away liberty. Those who won't obey the law still won't, and those who do will now have to chafe under a law that they don't need but takes away their liberty. To make further laws essentially treats all law abiding citizens as criminals. You can point out that it is arrogant and insulting of them to tell us we should not have guns, because they are basically saying 'you are a criminal and not trustworthy'. If they had a gun would they commit crimes? Why do they think that just because we have guns we will commit crimes, then? Are they better people than us? If any further laws are put in place they should only target those who have committed the crime, such as harsher punishments.

    In a different vein, an analogy could be made with our country and the world. Guns exist. We apparently are the good guys and some other countries are the bad guys. Is our military supposed to get rid of all their guns, because guns are bad? Obviously not because there are other nations out there who will not use give up theirs and use them in a wrong manner, and our nation wold then be at the mercy of any who would use force against us. They same is true of individuals, we should not give up our guns because 1.)guns exist 2.)people exist who will use the guns they don't give up to harm those who are unarmed. The whole idea of banning guns is really just ridiculous.

    Ok, I'm probably late for work now. I would maybe type more but I gotta go! Good luck!
     
    Garg and (deleted member) like this.
  20. MikeE

    MikeE Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    500
    Korntera - As a Democrat (but moving to the left) the one issue I find that motivates the Anti-Gun rank and file is gun violence. This is actually close to the chief concern of many gun owners - i.e. violent crime. When I talk to my anti-gun friends - I try to make the argument that Col Dave Grossman makes in his book On Killing:

    "It's not the hardware, it's the software."

    Grossman presents evidence that humans are hard-wired NOT to kill other humans. He says that when the US military studied this during WW2, they found that the majority of troops in combat were not shooting at the enemy. The military sought to remedy this (from their point of view) by developing conditioning training. The more sophisticated this training became, the greater percentage of troops engaged the enemy. Video was THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONDITIONER. However, in the military - rules of engagement and fire discipline is strictly enforced.

    Grossman shows how the spread of television coincided with the spike in murder and aggravated assault. Wherever TV spread, he shows a spike in this violent crime. With the advent of video games that essentially use military technology for entertainment purposes, Grossman correlates the spread of 'active shooter' incidents.
    Grossman argues that young people are exposed to the same conditioning tools as troops, except there are no rules of engagement, no negative conditioning for violating discipline - in fact, the opposite. Games reinforce violent behavior, as does the social environment around playing games - rewarding yourself with snacks and treats when you play, etc.

    So his argument, designed to find common ground between anti-gunners and pro-gunners, is to focus on the 'software, not the hardware'. The conditioning tools, which are being randomly deployed on our population like a giant, uncontrolled psych experiment, should be the target of people who are concerned with violent crime.

    I find this an excellent argument because it addresses both the fear of crime and family/social disintegration, and offers some practical solutions.