JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
776
Reactions
2,656
Time to add Gov. Kitzhaber to your mailing list of politicians who need education about modern semiautomatic rifles AKA "assault rifles":

SALEM -- Gov. John Kitzhaber says he won't lead the charge on tougher gun control laws in Oregon, but he expects the Legislature to take up the issue and will support what he considers to be reasonable changes.

In an interview with The Oregonian about the upcoming session, Kitzhaber confided that he's a "big supporter of the Second Amendment" and owns a bolt-action .22 hunting rifle that belonged to his grandfather.

Nonetheless, he said, he has no objections to laws aimed at restricting the kinds of weapons and ammunition used in the shootings at the Clackamas Town Center mall and the Connecticut elementary school.

"I don't know why anyone would need an assault rifle in this day and age," Kitzhaber said. "I don't know why anyone would resist a ban on guns in schools."

Tougher Oregon gun laws get Gov. John Kitzhaber's support | OregonLive.com
 
Right along with the libtard progressive party line.

On the other hand, we are getting too hung up on the libtards "assault weapon" term usage. They don't care if they are full auto or semi auto military style rifles, they might as well call them "turd" rifles. It is all the same: they they want to band them. They want another England / Australia here in the US of A. Period. If they get their way, we will be lucky if we can keep our wheel/repeater/bolt/pump rifles & handguns.
 
[QUOTE"I don't know why anyone would need an assault rifle in this day and age," Kitzhaber said":[/QUOTE]

Easy answer for future Tyranical politicians and government. Its not just for hunting anymore :s0112:
 
"I don't know why anyone would need an assault rifle in this day and age," Kitzhaber said. "I don't know why anyone would resist a ban on guns in schools."

I'm not sure why we let this kind of language slide. Since you can't think of a single reason to own one, we should take them all away? Does this kind of language work in other arguments? Can't think of a reason a person would want to smoke cigarettes? Ban them. Can't think of a reason why I might like to look at...ehem... attractive women on the internet? Well, let's ban it then. I personally can't think of a reason a person would want to own a Prius, should I then hold the opinion that it should be outlawed?

Or maybe it's disingenuous, you really do know why someone might want to own one, but you don't like it, or it scares you. If reporters would hold politicians to the line, and not let them get away with speaking like this, they wouldn't be able to weasel out of questions so easily.

My .02 anyway.
 
Right along with the libtard progressive party line.

Well, I don't know about the "libtard progressive party" because I can't find any reference to that political party; but if you're attempting to refer to the Democratic Party of Oregon - of which Mr. Kitzhaber is a member, then no, it's *NOT* part of the party line:

We need to remind Democratic elected officials of that official position of the Democratic Party of Oregon. Note that it says nothing about banning or restricting *ANY* weapons of any kind - solely that there should be penalties for "criminal use or misuse". (Yes, "misuse" is vague, but mere ownership of anything isn't a "use", therefore it can't be a "misuse".)
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top