Jeff Merkley = No Clue on Firearms

[fingolfen]

<broken link removed>

Because of several recent Second Amendment and Firearms related issues that have been appearing before the United States Senate (Sotomayor hearing, concealed carry reciprocity, etc.) I've pretty much had my Senators on speed dial, or in this case speed email. I recently got a form letter back from Freshman Senator Jeff Merkley, who was narrowly elected over incumbent Gordon Smith. Ironically, Constitution Party candidate David Brownlow seems to have played spoiler in this case as his tally was far more than the difference between Merkley and Smith. Chalk yet another election fiasco up to our broken election law. I however, digress. Suffice it to say that if Obama wasn't at the top of the ticket, Merkley wouldn't be in the Senate today, nor should he be if his most recent missive is representative of his policies and his grasp on law and policy in his home state.

Here's the text of his form letter:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on gun control legislation. It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights, and I support the ability of law abiding gun owners to own and use firearms. At the same time, however, I believe that we must protect our children and ensure that deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals. For this reason, I support common sense measures that help keep our communities safe including mandatory background checks and closing the gun show loophole that permits unlicensed private vendors to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows without background checks.

I will continue to stand for sportsmen and law abiding citizens, and protect their constitutional right to bear arms.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me, and please continue to keep me informed about issues that concern you.

Note his focus on the so-called "gun show loophole." There's one big problem here. Merkley allegedly represents the state of Oregon. Oregon has no "gun show loophole." If you want to buy a firearm at any show in the state, you must either have an FFL (or C&R) or pass the background check.

Given his lack of grasp of Oregon Law (bear in mind he was a State Representative for several terms as well as Speaker of the Oregon House), how the heck can this individual consider himself qualified to be a U.S. Senator. I have a better grasp on firearm law than he does, and I know he's getting paid a lot more than I am!

Instead of actually demonstrating an understanding of the issue, Merkley has just spouted partisan rhetoric from his favorite anti-Second Amendment groups and passed it off as a policy stance. Quite frankly Oregon deserves more professionalism and competency from its Senator, and I sincerely hope that Merkley is a "one and out."

Read More

 

[CEF1959]

Oregon is one of only 6 states requiring background checks for all private firearm sales at gun shows, though a handful of others require checks for handguns sold at gun shows. Merkley's letter just means he supports extending the Oregon requirement nationwide. I assume he thinks that if Oregon has adopted the requirement, Oregonians would (or should) be in favor of imposing it on other states. I don't think the letter, by itself, suggests an ignorance of Oregon firearms legislation.

 

[Armsdealer]

Hopefully you will tell him to wake up! What a dope. Below is a recent response I received from the Senator. Another reason I did not vote for the dope.

"After careful evaluation, I have decided to support the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is called upon to decide cases which weigh competing public priorities and resolve conflicting democratic values. To handle such cases properly, justices not only must be intelligent, learned, and experienced, but should also be sensitive to the practical effects that their rulings have on average people. In speaking with Judge Sotomayor and again in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I was struck by her attention to detail, breadth of understanding, and respect for precedent. Through her long service on the bench, she has demonstrated a firm commitment to the Constitution and its abiding principles. For these reasons, I believe that she will be well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."

I don't think Sotomayor answered one question. What detail is he talking about?!

 

[fingolfen]

Oregon is one of only 6 states requiring background checks for all private firearm sales at gun shows, though a handful of others require checks for handguns sold at gun shows. Merkley's letter just means he supports extending the Oregon requirement nationwide. I assume he thinks that if Oregon has adopted the requirement, Oregonians would (or should) be in favor of imposing it on other states. I don't think the letter, by itself, suggests an ignorance of Oregon firearms legislation.

If that's what he really meant, then he could have easily and quickly prefaced the sentence with something like "although gun shows in Oregon require a background check..."

It's clear he's drinking the koolaid and/or simply trying to overstate the issue.

 

[CEF1959]

If that's what he really meant, then he could have easily and quickly prefaced the sentence with something like "although gun shows in Oregon require a background check..."

It's clear he's drinking the koolaid and/or simply trying to overstate the issue.

You missed the point. OP said Merkley's letter showed he was clueless about Oregon firearms statutes. My response was not a defense of Merkley's position on the issue, but just to point out that the letter quoted by the OP didn't support his point. Then you say Merkely is wrong on the issues. OK, but it's a non sequitur.

It works like this:

Original Post: "Obama is a Socialist. Because his middle name is Hussein."
Response: "Having a middle name Hussein doesn't necessarily mean he's a Socialist."
Next comment: "How can you support Obama? You liberal scum. Obviously he's a Socialist. You must be a Socialist too."

It's a commom pattern around here. And it's not honest.

 

[Trlsmn]

You missed the point. OP said Merkley's letter showed he was clueless about Oregon firearms statutes. My response was not a defense of Merkley's position on the issue, but just to point out that the letter quoted by the OP didn't support his point. Then you say Merkely is wrong on the issues. OK, but it's a non sequitur.

It works like this:

Original Post: "Obama is a Socialist. Because his middle name is Hussein."
Response: "Having a middle name Hussein doesn't necessarily mean he's a Socialist."
Next comment: "How can you support Obama? You liberal scum. Obviously he's a Socialist. You must be a Socialist too."

It's a commom pattern around here. And it's not honest.

Does not compute......

The OP is giving his evidence for you to see and his conclusions, his conclusions are based on the actual literal wording of the response (OBJECTIVE), your conclusions could also be true but call for evidence not in the quoted letter (SUBJECTIVE), in logical reasoning he would be more right than you.

The point I am trying to get across is that your example (highlighted) while it fits the "commom" pattern of many (weak) debates here (NWFA) it is totally unfair and erroneous to use that example to categorize fingolfens skills in this debate as they don't fit your "commom" pattern.

 

[CEF1959]

So you think that it follows from "I support closing the gunshow loophole" that Merkely is "clueless" about Oregon law? That was the OP's point, and it was he who called Merkley "clueless" about Oregon law. Do you really agree? I suspect Jeff Merkley, for all his misguided views about them, knows more about Oregon firearms law than the OP does.

Then Armsdealer replies: "Yeah, but Merkely is bad."

Ok..... But that wasn't the OP's point. It was a point that Merkley's letter demonstrated cluelessness about Oregon law. Do you not get how distorted that train of conversation is? People jumping the tracks and arguing a different point than the one at issue?

 

[aslinged]

Just so you all know:

Politicians consider one Hand Written letter to be worth 2000 voices. An email on the other hand is virtually worthless. You could think of it as 2000 emails equal one hand written or typed letter.

Don't waste your time on email. Just print up ten copies of the letter, address it and have all your friends sign one. There is an equal relationship between the ease of email and it's value. Everyone knows it takes about zero effort, time or money. Or just send the one letter yourself, either way it's the chance you've got to make a dent.

Send snail mail letters.

 

[Trlsmn]

So you think that it follows from "I support closing the gunshow loophole" that Merkely is "clueless" about Oregon law? That was the OP's point, and it was he who called Merkley "clueless" about Oregon law. Do you really agree?

I was just pointing out that your assertion of fingolfens opinion and conclusion did not fit your example of mindless and was unfair as I know him to be a person that studies below the surface of an issue. I will voice my opinion on Merkley separately so as not to cloud the two subjects.

I suspect Jeff Merkley, for all his misguided views about them, knows more about Oregon firearms law than the OP does.

I on the other hand have serious doubts about that but my opinion is subjective! I have found that many Police officers do not fully understand the Oregon firearms law and they deal with it as a regular part of their job.

 

[CEF1959]

Fingolgen's original point was that Merkley's letter showed "cluelessness" about Oregon law. It doesn't. He may be clueless about Oregon law (hmm) but the letter is not evidence of that. That was my original point.

And the defense of Fingolfen's point hasn't been a defense of Merkley's supposed cluelessness about Oregon law, but rather that Merkley is bad. Hence my point about how the discussion gets twisted. It's a pattern in history that has not served civilization well.

"I hate Armenians. They are all communists."
"Not all Armenians are communists."
"Why do you love Armenians so much? You must be a communist too."

 

[CEF1959]

I on the other hand have serious doubts about that but my opinion is subjective! I have found that many Police officers do not fully understand the Oregon firearms law and they deal with it as a regular part of their job.

Well, the only way to test this would be to put the OP and Jeff Merkley in a room together and quiz them about the details about Oregon firearms law. Whom would your money be on?

 

[Trlsmn]

Fingolgen's original point was that Merkley's letter showed "cluelessness" about Oregon law. It doesn't. He may be clueless about Oregon law (hmm) but the letter is not evidence of that. That was my original point.

And the defense of Fingolfen's point hasn't been a defense of Merkley's supposed cluelessness about Oregon law, but rather that Merkley is bad. Hence my point about how the discussion gets twisted. It's a pattern in history that has not served civilization well.

"I hate Armenians. They are all communists."
"Not all Armenians are communists."
"Why do you love Armenians so much? You must be a communist too."

OK we can go past my point about your unfairly judging fingolfen and move on to the post. My opinion of why fingolfen would draw this conclusion is that Merkley quantified the specificity of his statement as pertaining to Oregon here:

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights,

That literally specifies Oregonians in the same paragraph (see below) as the action, gunshow loophole. He may have meant nationwide but there's that Objective vs Subjective evidence thing again.

Paragraph a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea.

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights, and I support the ability of law abiding gun owners to own and use firearms. At the same time, however, I believe that we must protect our children and ensure that deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals. For this reason, I support common sense measures that help keep our communities safe including mandatory background checks and closing the gun show loophole that permits unlicensed private vendors to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows without background checks.

 

[CEF1959]

So that shows that Merkley is "clueless" about Oregon law? How?

I think it shows that you and Merkley disagree about what state and federal law should be. But that's different.

It's the difference between, "He's stupid" and "He's wrong." Two very different propositions.

 

[Trlsmn]

So that shows that Merkley is "clueless" about Oregon law? How?

It shows that the evidence written in the statement (Merkley) is in error and if true would show he is clueless.

I think it shows that you and Merkley disagree about what state and federal law should be. But that's different.

No argument there, but only relevant in showing that he doesn't represent me.

I must point out that he doesn't even bring states rights into this, but you just did, which show even more cluelessness on Merkley's understanding and that maybe you also understand this better than Merkley.

It's the difference between, "He's stupid" and "He's wrong." Two very different propositions.

Clueless could mean either

 

[Trlsmn]

Well, the only way to test this would be to put the OP and Jeff Merkley in a room together and quiz them about the details about Oregon firearms law. Whom would your money be on?

It's all relevant, if we could have the debate an hour from now I would put my money squarely on fingolfen, if the debate was planned out into the future it would likely be a tie as any reasonable intelligent person would make the effort to know the subject inside and out, a congress critters resources are likely much vaster the fingolfens, though I would still put fingolfen on an equal stance under those circumstances.

 

[orduckhunter]

I got this same reply in my email inbox

I realize this is a "blue" state, but we need to let our senators know what the people they "represent" think

 

[CEF1959]

Clueless could mean either

Well, let's stick to the point of this thread, which was OP's comment that the Merkley letter showed that Merkley was "clueless" about Oregon law. And by that, he didn't mean that Merkely understands Oregon law but is misguided in his policies. He meant that Merkely doesn't know what he's talking about.

In support of that proposition, OP pointed out that the Merkley letter supported a closing of the "gunshow loophole" that has already been closed in Oregon. I say it doesn't show anything of the sort, since that "loophole" exists in 44 states over which Merkley oversees as a US Senator.

If you want to argue whether Jeff Merkley is a good Senator or bad Senator, that's another issue. But his letter doesn't demonstrate cluelessness about Oregon firearms law as the OP suggested.

I don't think the OP understood that Oregon is one of only 6 states to require background checks for all gun show firearm purchases. Hence his (erroneous) claim that Merkley was "clueless" on the issue.

 

[CEF1959]

It's all relevant, if we could have the debate an hour from now I would put my money squarely on fingolfen, if the debate was planned out into the future it would likely be a tie as any reasonable intelligent person would make the effort to know the subject inside and out, a congress critters resources are likely much vaster the fingolfens, though I would still put fingolfen on an equal stance under those circumstances.

I'd take that bet. And profit mightily thereby.... Heck, I'd give huge odds and laugh while cleaning up.

 

[fingolfen]

Okay - let's look at the statements in context, no bold face:

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights, and I support the ability of law abiding gun owners to own and use firearms.

At this point he is referring to his constituency, the people of Oregon and their rights. I interpret these rights as both rights under Federal and State law since Federal Law is bound by the Second Amendment and Oregon law is bound by Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution.

At the same time, however, I believe that we must protect our children and ensure that deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals.

At this point he's using the inclusive first person plural possessive. As the previous sentence referred to the "people of Oregon", I'm forced to conclude that he is still referring to himself and his constituency.

For this reason, I support common sense measures that help keep our communities safe including mandatory background checks and closing the gun show loophole that permits unlicensed private vendors to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows without background checks.

At this point he is STILL using the the inclusive first person plural possessive, which means I am still forced to conclude that he refers to Oregon and Oregonians in this statement and is asserting that Oregon has a "gun-show loophole" - which is empirically incorrect. At no point does Merkley attempt to draw his statements outside of his Oregon constituency.

I can therefore hypothesize two reasons for that incorrect assertion and draw inferences from them:

1) He is unaware of Oregon Law
2) He is aware of Oregon Law, but attempting to mislead the public in the service of a greater ideology.

Either reason above indicates that Merkley is not fit to serve as Senator in my book.

 

[gunnoob75]

I don't think the OP understood that Oregon is one of only 6 states to require background checks for all gun show firearm purchases. Hence his (erroneous) claim that Merkley was "clueless" on the issue.

Doesn't make sence to me.

Merkley didn't know Oregon had NO gun show loophole.

Oregon's "gunshow loophole" has been closed and is no longer an issue.
But, he still wants to close it. You can't close a door twice, you know?