JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm guessing that even if there was a republican majority, the senators representing the West Coast and Northeast states would vote nearly the same way. I've seen some of the numbers of concealed permits issued by states, and the northeast/west coast states have a _dinky_ amount by comparison. The majority of citizens in those states have very little interest in having more of us among their ranks. The senators, as always, will pander to the majority. Kinda their job, really.
 
Oh yeah, our old friend sucky Chucky.
The guy someone here thinks has no influence,...
Strike 3 PP!

C&P

"One thing to remember here -- the vote on the amendment actually passed, by a sizable majority.

The only reason that it "failed" is that slime-ball Schumer promised a filibuster.
The way the Senate works is that you don't actually have to carry out your filibuster, just claim that you will do one - the, since it needs 60 votes to override a filibuster, they assume that the filibuster will succeed, and just say that the vote fails.

This, of course, is stupidity. Anyone who wants to play that particular ace should be forced to carry through with it."
 
I'm guessing that even if there was a republican majority, the senators representing the West Coast and Northeast states would vote nearly the same way. I've seen some of the numbers of concealed permits issued by states, and the northeast/west coast states have a _dinky_ amount by comparison. The majority of citizens in those states have very little interest in having more of us among their ranks. The senators, as always, will pander to the majority. Kinda their job, really.

I'm going to call you on this Cam, please show me the data to back this up. Not saying you are wrong just I always feel it's good to show proof.
 
Originally Posted by Trlsmn

"One thing to remember here -- the vote on the amendment actually passed, by a sizable majority.

The only reason that it "failed" is that slime-ball Schumer promised a filibuster.
The way the Senate works is that you don't actually have to carry out your filibuster, just claim that you will do one - the, since it needs 60 votes to override a filibuster, they assume that the filibuster will succeed, and just say that the vote fails.

This, of course, is stupidity. Anyone who wants to play that particular ace should be forced to carry through with it.


"Oh yeah, our old friend sucky Chucky.
The guy someone here thinks has no influence,...
Strike 3 PP
!


Yeah Chucky and Fienstein, who ever listens to them?

Look at Chuckys shi'ite eating grin shooting a machine-gun! Frakkin hypocrite!
 
Part of me wanted this passed, but part of me is for states rights and keeping the federal government out of the states' business. Its not a red vs blue thing to me because I think we have one party putting on an act...with some really bad actors.

Back to the state level...maybe we could start something here to work on our local officials to get (for a start) reciprocity among the Pacific Northwest states?
 
I'm going to call you on this Cam, please show me the data to back this up. Not saying you are wrong just I always feel it's good to show proof.

Ugh. You're going to make me go try and track this down? ;)

Here's a map of gun restrictions by state:

<broken link removed>

Northeast/ California look ugly.

This is an AP article: <broken link removed>

" Feinstein said California, the nation's most populous state, has issued about 40,000 concealed gun permits, while Florida has issued 580,000 and Georgia 300,000. Thune said about 5 million people nationwide have concealed weapons permits. "

I appreciate the fact that the quote is from Feinstein, and therefore suspect, but it seems marginally accurate.

This is a link to a % of concealed carry by population-

http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

Given this, I should at least recant "West Coast" and replace with "California." Washington and Oregon are exceptional- excepting our lame *** senators ;)
 
Does it matter if it's the federal government or state that's in charge?

Either way, someone else is making your decisions for you. I don't see a plus or minus to either scenario; States having control, or Feds having control. If all the states have control, you're still just in another little country..
 
Oh yeah, our old friend sucky Chucky.
The guy someone here thinks has no influence,...
Strike 3 PP!

I'm guessing that even if there was a republican majority, the senators representing the West Coast and Northeast states would vote nearly the same way. I've seen some of the numbers of concealed permits issued by states, and the northeast/west coast states have a _dinky_ amount by comparison. The majority of citizens in those states have very little interest in having more of us among their ranks. The senators, as always, will pander to the majority. Kinda their job, really.

OK so now that you have seen the reality of your own proof, care to stick by this statement? Before I tear it apart piece by piece?
 
:confused:

Whose/Which statement are you referring to?

The illogical assumption that the citizens of non shall issue states have no interest in exercising their right to carry concealed as you stated here:

The majority of citizens in those states have very little interest in having more of us among their ranks.

And so making this statement a laughable catch 22:

The senators, as always, will pander to the majority. Kinda their job, really.
 
The illogical assumption that the citizens of non shall issue states have no interest in exercising their right to carry concealed as you stated here:

"The majority of citizens in those states have very little interest in having more of us among their ranks."

And so making this statement a laughable catch 22:

"The senators, as always, will pander to the majority. Kinda their job, really."

The NE states and California are May Issue States, not Non shall issue states.

The percentage of the population that have concealed carry licenses in those states are the lowest in the nation.

It seems reasonable to me that that citizens in mostly urban states with high population densities appear to favor politicians that are anti-gun. Or stated another way, politicians who want to get elected in these areas vote anti-gun to appease their constituents; regardless of political party.

I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

You appeared to support this statement Originally Posted by xstayfrostyx:
The Democans and Republicrats are interchangable...

I'm simply agreeing with you.:s0155:
 
The illogical assumption that the citizens of non shall issue states have no interest in exercising their right to carry concealed as you stated here:...

I would also argue that in many people's minds, fear of having someone else carry concealed around them outweighs their personal desire to exercise a right they have little to no interest in.
 
The NE states and California are May Issue States, not Non shall issue states.

Come on now :s0112: You really believe that the numbers are from lack of interest or because May issue = won't issue?

The percentage of the population that have concealed carry licenses in those states are the lowest in the nation.

Exactly but not for want of a concealed carry license, but for the inability to procure such license

It seems reasonable to me that that citizens in mostly urban states with high population densities appear to favor politicians that are anti-gun.

I would have to disagree with that. I honestly feel that the majority of Americans regardless of location are pro-gun and that the numbers are growing not shrinking.

Or stated another way, politicians who want to get elected in these areas vote anti-gun to appease their constituents; regardless of political party.

I believe all politicians will tell their constituents anything they need to hear to get elected, once in power the will of the majority has very little to do with politics.

I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

That's why I consider you an Idealist and not a Realist.

You appeared to support this statement Originally Posted by xstayfrostyx:
The Democans and Republicrats are interchangable...

That we can agree on, I feel the GOP and the Democrats are a 2 headed snake, unfortunately at this time the Demos hold complete power so the attention is on them, the GOP will not be a factor in politics until an election changes things. Balance of power is a good thing.

I'm simply agreeing with you.:s0155:

Yah right.............
 
I would also argue that in many people's minds, fear of having someone else carry concealed around them outweighs their personal desire to exercise

Your "arguement" is based on your assumption, but your assumptions are based on?

a right they have little to no interest in.

This is just plain erroneous thinking, the ever increasing demand for CHLs in shall issue states, shows that there is big interest in "carry concealed".

Check your data for confirmation.
 
Your "arguement" is based on your assumption, but your assumptions are based on?

Observation.


This is just plain erroneous thinking, the ever increasing demand for CHLs in shall issue states, shows that there is big interest in "carry concealed".

Check your data for confirmation.

Check my data? Come on, let's get real. The state with the _most_ CCLs is South Dakota. 7.45% -- That's less than 1 in 10 with carry permits. Average in the top 25 states. is 2-3%. That's 2 or 3 people in every 100 in the top 25 states.

The US population is 304,059,724. 5,000,000 people have carry permits. That's 1.6% who carry.

"Ever increasing demand" and "big interest" are great, but even if our numbers were to quadruple, we would be a "dinky" minority.
 
Does it matter if it's the federal government or state that's in charge?

Either way, someone else is making your decisions for you. I don't see a plus or minus to either scenario; States having control, or Feds having control. If all the states have control, you're still just in another little country..


Well in a way is DOES matter who's in charge. I'm all for States rights and of the opinion that the States SHOULD be like "little countries" in and of themselves. IIRC, Gen. Lee referred to Virginia as "his country", and that's why he fought on the side of the South during the U.S. civil war. I believe the vast majority of our forefathers' vision was set up the structure for the union of our States in such a way as to have de-centralized power, and that the Federal Government's role is to (put VERY simply):

1. Guarantee each State resident's U.S. Constitutional rights (as outlined in the Constitution) that the states accepted to abide by ratifying the Constitution and joining the Union.

2. To represent, protect, & project the interest of the United States abroad.

3. Preserve the Union.


The very foundation on which our country is formed is RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, as outlined in the bill of rights. The way I see it is, the Federal goverment is PERFECTLY within it's authority to enforce/impose upon the member States the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. Regardless of the "States' rights" issue, no State has the right (or authority) to impede the (law abiding) U.S. Citizen's Constitutional rights.


What is (generally) being missed here is that NOW you hear the various Sentators who voted against this bill spouting off about the "rights of the States" to decide who gets to carry and who doesn't (yet are all for "Big Centralized D.C. Government" and unfunded mandates)... THAT is hypocritical. I was BRIEFLY torn on this particular forum subject (State's rights vs. Federal authority), but in this case (even though I strongly suspect it was all political theater) it is NOT a hypocritical stance to cheer for this subject at the Federal level, because its NOT about increasing government power (State or Federal), but increasing EVERY (law abiding) U.S. Citizen's 2A rights!! :s0155:
 
Part of an OFF alert, I agree that this may not be a bad thing, less federal involvement the better.

(But there are other considerations.

As you know, OFF worked hard to get Oregon to recognize other state's permits this past session. We do not believe that an American should have to ask permission to exercise a right, but as long as the permit system is alive (against our wishes) we will work to allow your license to be valid in other states, and other states' permits to be valid here.

Still, we are not sure that this proposed amendment was the best way to go about this.

Most gun owners wonder why a driver's license is good anywhere in the country but a CHL is not.

That's a good question. But keep in mind, driver's licenses were always the domain of the states. Now, the FEDs have moved in to use them as a back-door national id card.

If the states do not comply with Federal mandates on driver's licenses. they will not be acceptable ID for boarding planes or entering Federal buildings. The long and belligerent arm of the Federal Government has stepped in on driver's licenses. What happens when they do the same on CHL's?

While it is unknown at this point, it is certainly a cause for concern. So while the narrow defeat of this amendment is not a "win" for gun owners, it may not be the worst thing that can happen to us.)
 

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