O.F.F - Alert 9/30 - Attack on Gun Rights Begin Long Before Special Session

[svxr8dr]

They may be different animals but the players involved are the same. In addition both systems are there to perpetuate themselves in power and line their individual pockets. Then again maybe you are right and this system as it sits works just fine, after all O.J. is innocent rrrrright?

 

[el gringo loco]

They may be different animals but the players involved are the same. In addition both systems are there to perpetuate themselves in power and line their individual pockets. Then again maybe you are right and this system as it sits works just fine, after all O.J. is innocent rrrrright?

I'm not gonna say the criminal justice system is perfect-far from it. However, a la OJ, it errors on the side of letting people go and not wrongly convicting them. By the time the victim's have decided whether or not pressing charges is worth the hassle, and then th DA has pled or dumped any case that is not a guaranteed winner, and then a jury full of people raised on Perry Mason where the guy that got arrested is never guilty--I would say a conviction is a pretty sure thing.

 

[svxr8dr]

I fully support a system that is setup to let an guilty man go free rather than imprison an innocent one. Yet like you said, it's the deal cuttings between attorney's, regardless of the public good, the influence of money and politics grows for the legal system players involved while they work at selecting jurors who have nothing more than a pulse and a complete ignorance to what goes on around them.

 

[Trlsmn]

Sorry, but I don't buy the sob stories anymore. Every once in a while I hear a compelling story about how Mr. Innocent was done wrong by the system. I start to feel sympathetic and then-wham-it goes all Paul Harvey and then I know the rest of the story. There may be one or two sad cases of people done wrong by the law, but I believe it to be EXTREMELY rare. Poor impulse control or bad luck, too bad felons----NO GUNS FOR YOU!

From a karma perspective, my opinions might bite me in the rear. However, some actions have lasting consequences. I'd even advocate that a repeated pattern of misdemeanors would warrant barring someone from guns. Guns require good decision making and a great deal of maturity. I recognize that the people you mention are friends and, as such, you are able to see them in a better light. But, I believe there is much more to their stories/history.

You know "El green go loco" you are the kind of gun owner that I as an activist don't want speaking up for our gun rights. You are willing to give up a little here and a little there until we have no gun rights at all.

So tell me El gringo loco,
How do you feel about our right to own semi autos, the so called assault weapons, yes or no?

How about our private ownership of full auto, aka machine guns, yes or no?

Do you support any form of gun registration, yes or no?

 

[MEP1000]

Family Court and Criminal court are two different animals. Different rules. Different standards of evidence. Nothing in family court has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no advocate for the people (prosecutor) and, generally, no jury. Likening family court and criminal court is like saying a Porsche and a skateboard are the same thing because they both have four wheels and are used for transportation.

My skateboard could beat your sorry porsche anyday and you know it

 

[el gringo loco]

You know "El green go loco" you are the kind of gun owner that I as an activist don't want speaking up for our gun rights. You are willing to give up a little here and a little there until we have no gun rights at all.
I think you may be confusing your disgust with my pro-labor, anti right-wing talking points politics on another thread with my commitment to gun rights. What have I advocated to give up? I hold the same position that 90+% of the public (gun owners and non-gun owners alike hold---That criminals should not be allowed to have guns. This is the same position that the NRA has. Something like 60% of felons re-offend (that means get caught) in the first two years of release. A guy with 6 misdemeanor arrests is just as bad as a guy with one felony in my book. Do you you really want that guy who is prowling your car (committing a misdemeanor) carrying a gun? True, if a criminal really wants a gun they will get it. But, it makes it slightly more difficult for them to get AND-MOST IMPORTANTLY- GUN Charges carry heavy sentences, meaning that those who get caught with a gun will cease to be a problem for years at a time.

So tell me El gringo loco,
How do you feel about our right to own semi autos, the so called assault weapons, yes or no?

BUY! BUY! BUY! Every law-abiding American should be familiar with or own America's main battle rifle the AR-15. Like 'em. Love 'em. Want some more of 'em.

How about our private ownership of full auto, aka machine guns, yes or no?

Yes. I propose raising the tax stamp price to $1000 or $1500 and allowing the purchase of newly manufactured machine guns.


Do you support any form of gun registration, yes or no?

Yes. I believe that select fire weapons (see above question) should be registered and that the level of accountability for the owner should and must be much greater than for other types of weapons. I believe for those type of weapons that their should be storage requirements, registration etc.

 

[el gringo loco]

My skateboard could beat your sorry porsche anyday and you know it

I want to see the skateboard that's sturdy enough for you to ride.

 

[sillyrabbit]

Sent my email and fax, made my phone call.

Is it just me or does it seem (without any names being mentioned) that we have a few "radical liberals" on here? So liberal in fact, there is no way they could be "FOR REAL" Pro Second amendment people?

I can't believe some the comments I've read. YES they have freedom to say what they will....... but Pro Second Amendment? I'm really doubting it.

No, I'm not being paranoid, but reading some of the responses (from certain individuals), I could swear they are from the same individual I have listened to and spoke with (in an entirely different setting) and believe me he is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment person!

Just wondering and my $.02 worth

 

[Trlsmn]

Sent my email and fax, made my phone call.

Is it just me or does it seem (without any names being mentioned) that we have a few "radical liberals" on here? So liberal in fact, there is no way they could be "FOR REAL" Pro Second amendment people?

I can't believe some the comments I've read. YES they have freedom to say what they will....... but Pro Second Amendment? I'm really doubting it.

No, I'm not being paranoid, but reading some of the responses (from certain individuals), I could swear they are from the same individual I have listened to and spoke with (in an entirely different setting) and believe me he is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment person!

Just wondering and my $.02 worth

You're not the first person to notice this. I do enjoy the sport of "Wack a Lib" though so it's all good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJxCd2F-Zb8

 

[svxr8dr]

I believe for those type of weapons that their should be storage requirements, registration etc.

What's the polite way to say F that!? What part of "not be infringed", keeps getting more difficult for you?

 

[el gringo loco]

What's the polite way to say F that!? What part of "not be infringed", keeps getting more difficult for you?

Okay, so right now if you want to own a machine gun, you get a tax stamp and register the gun. You also get to choose from some of the best guns manufactured over 23 years ago and pay the equivalent of a moderately priced car to own it.

My suggestion: $3000 or so bucks, brand new gun, same requirements but you need to buy a safe and take reasonable steps to ensure it cannot be stolen and maybe face stricter penalties if you get caught supplying automatic weapons to criminals. Sounds awful.

 

[svxr8dr]

Okay, so right now if you want to own a machine gun, you get a tax stamp and register the gun. You also get to choose from some of the best guns manufactured over 23 years ago and pay the equivalent of a moderately priced car to own it.

My suggestion: $3000 or so bucks, brand new gun, same requirements but you need to buy a safe and take reasonable steps to ensure it cannot be stolen and maybe face stricter penalties if you get caught supplying automatic weapons to criminals. Sounds awful.

How about rather than finding new and inventive ways to tax and fee me, or just generally increase the amount of government in my law abiding life. You spend less time creating a bureaucracy that has no effect on societies criminal element. There are simple steps to improve the process in owning a machine gun and increasing regulation is not one of them.

 

[theLEMband]

I am gonna have to say I agree with OFF on the second issue (concealed carry on campus or anywhere else). However, I think they are off base on the first issue. There are many non-sensical laws out there (Washington's suppressor law) that are worthy of attention. Whether a convicted felon (aka one of the reasons I carry gun) can buy but not possess/own a gun after making a petition to the state does not seem like an issue worth addressing. Why not change the law so that no petition can be made period? One consequence of committing a felony is that you lose the right to own guns. I'm ok with that. OFF is getting in a tizzy over Oregon DOJ's nonsensical argument against OFF's nonsensical position.

You think they should remove firearms from campuses? Why should college students not have a right to defend themselves?

 

[el gringo loco]

You think they should remove firearms from campuses? Why should college students not have a right to defend themselves?

Dude, READ my post again and then tell me if you would like to retract this statement. I took issue with the re-instating rights to a felon portion of the argument.

How about rather than finding new and inventive ways to tax and fee me, or just generally increase the amount of government in my law abiding life. You spend less time creating a bureaucracy that has no effect on societies criminal element. There are simple steps to improve the process in owning a machine gun and increasing regulation is not one of them.

Politically, you are never going to get anywhere on the machine gun issue without the following:

1. We need to throw the "we are not here to take guns from law-abiding citizens" statement right back in their face. My proposal has SAFEGUARDS to ENSURE that CRIMINALS NEVER GET THEIR HANDS ON AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON.

2. We need to realize that the vast majority of the American public does not understand the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16. The Assault Weapons ban passed, in large part, because tacti-cool black guns look like, and are interpreted by the general public, to be the same things as machine guns. Automatic weapons scare the unfamiliar.

3. We need to understand that, if we did get the ability to own machine guns with no restrictions, one or two high profile mass shootings with a "legal machine gun" and we'd be fighting for our right to own a cap gun.

4. To be successful, there needs to be a significant price difference between full-auto and semi-auto guns. Thus, the tax stamp. The tax stamp ensures that only "the most responsible gun owners" get to own full-auto guns. This is about PR.

Think like an anti-gunner. Think incrementally. That is why they keep winning these small battles that add up over time.

The anti-gun lobby has framed the debate such that blanket laws are placed over the entire gun-owning public to prevent the actions of a small number people. We need to acknowledge that automatic weapons represent a lot of firepower and, in the wrong hands, would be extremely dangerous. In Portland alone, hundreds, if not several thousand guns are stolen each year. These guns are taken from cars or because they are unsecured in a home that is burglarized. I think it is reasonable (and many would disagree) to require a higher level of accountability when it comes to securing an automatic weapon. No one should be able to leave a select fire MP-5 under the seat of their truck and not bear some responsibility if it is stolen.

In a perfect world, everyone could own their own tank. But, if we lived in a perfect world, the tank might never have been invented.

 

[Karma]

el gringo loco
Politically, you are never going to get anywhere on the machine gun issue without the following:

1. We need to throw the "we are not here to take guns from law-abiding citizens" statement right back in their face. My proposal has SAFEGUARDS to ENSURE that CRIMINALS NEVER GET THEIR HANDS ON AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON.

A criminal can get their hands on a automatic weapon or anything else they want. Look at what has been going on just over our southern border. First off, anything is available if you aren't scared to break laws to get it. Second of all, a SKS for example, isn't that hard for a criminal to make fire full auto. You can find instruction on the net in 20 seconds to do it. So why do we allow laws to be made that do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, but are aimed at us the law abiding citizen?


2. We need to realize that the vast majority of the American public does not understand the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16. The Assault Weapons ban passed, in large part, because tacti-cool black guns look like, and are interpreted by the general public, to be the same things as machine guns. Automatic weapons scare the unfamiliar.

Any weapon scares the unfamiliar.

3. We need to understand that, if we did get the ability to own machine guns with no restrictions, one or two high profile mass shootings with a "legal machine gun" and we'd be fighting for our right to own a cap gun.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Enough said.

4. To be successful, there needs to be a significant price difference between full-auto and semi-auto guns. Thus, the tax stamp. The tax stamp ensures that only "the most responsible gun owners" get to own full-auto guns. This is about PR.

So, let me see if I understand your point here. What defines a person as being one of "the most responsible gun owners" is his ability to pay extortion money to the government? How is charging money not infringing on a persons RIGHT? For something to be a RIGHT, it cannot be licensed so that only a select few can enjoy it. Maybe we should put a tax on freedom of speech, so that we can insure that only the "most responsible people" can participate. Then we wouldn't have the majority of Americans voicing their opinions! That is the kind of elitist attitude that needs to disappear. That is the same kind of attitude that is prevalent in our government now. It leads them to believe we the people can't think for ourselves and run our own lives so we obviously need government to do it for us!

Think like an anti-gunner. Think incrementally. That is why they keep winning these small battles that add up over time.

There is really no battle to win! We the people need to make it clear that there is no room for erosion of our Bill of Rights! No compromises.

The anti-gun lobby has framed the debate such that blanket laws are placed over the entire gun-owning public to prevent the actions of a small number people. We need to acknowledge that automatic weapons represent a lot of firepower and, in the wrong hands, would be extremely dangerous. In Portland alone, hundreds, if not several thousand guns are stolen each year. These guns are taken from cars or because they are unsecured in a home that is burglarized. I think it is reasonable (and many would disagree) to require a higher level of accountability when it comes to securing an automatic weapon. No one should be able to leave a select fire MP-5 under the seat of their truck and not bear some responsibility if it is stolen.

No, responsibility should fall solely on the shoulder of the criminal! I live up in the foothills. I had to call the cops the other day, because I found a safe that was dumped over the bank above my house. Someone spent a great deal on a safe for their house as it turns out. A criminal stole the entire safe from their house, destroyed it and got it's contents. A safe isn't the end all of safety. Besides a person has the reasonable expectation that his property should remain his when in his house or his vehicle for example. If he was negligent and left it out on the sidewalk in front of his house, it would be a different story.

In a perfect world, everyone could own their own tank. But, if we lived in a perfect world, the tank might never have been invented.

Very true. We once lived in the closest thing to a perfect country in the modern world. I would have settled for that. It is rapidly devolving. I guess it is all in the name of "change".

 

[svxr8dr]

Well said Karma!

 

[sillyrabbit]

Seems to me and my humble intellect, the answer is SIMPLE and CLEAR.......

FIRST----- NO law abiding citizen of sound mind and with No criminal history, should have any Infringements at all, of any kind what so ever, on our Second Amendment Rights....... Not in ownership, possessing, possession, concealed carry etc. Not on automatics, shotguns, handguns, suppressors, even machine guns, water pistols or whatever..... NONE!

SECOND---- When CRIMINALS (or those committing a crime .... become criminals) are found guilty, we follow laws that are already on the books and make them stick for everyone on every case! Meaning if you commit a crime and are found guilty by your peers, and you get 5 years for shooting up the store, or robbing someone, or burglarizing a home or business and stealing their belongings (including firearms), then you serve your 5 years, not 6 months and out on "good behavior" or probation or "our jails are crowed, we can't incarcerate him" BULLS_ _ _! Serve the time, they did the crime!

AND....... If one of us law abiding citizens is found guilty of supplying guns, ANY guns to criminals, then we become criminal and we should pay the price as well! Period!

Now before I get bombarded... I totally agree there are already to many laws and restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.... (and CRIMINALS don't obey laws!) and more regulation and restrictions will not solve anything (past performance proves that), and we should get the idiotic laws off the books! But until we do, make them stick equally across the spectrum! I believe UNTIL we enforce already existing laws equally across the board with minimum mandatory sentencing... and make them... well, mandatory! [What a unique concept, why didn't I think of that? ] nothing will change.

More laws for law abiding citizenry... more regulation for regular people, are great on paper and for political speeches, but the criminal never follows the law nor are they afraid of them! and they don't work! Havent' in the past, won't in the future! Want examples: Chicago, New York, L.A.... three of the strictest gun laws with three of the highest crime rates and the most ILLEGAL guns! hmmmmmm........

So...., have NO restrictions on our Constitutional Rights, and for those that do not respect anothers rights and break the laws......... they pay! NOT us!

So. what's wrong with this idea?

First....... Our Liberal friends won't want to incarcerate those poor souls that grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, or are poor, disadvantaged, or didn't get their welfare checks in the mail.... we wouldn't want to jail them for just a "simple little crime" like rape or assault or robbery now would we? so let's just give them probation (and wonder why their rap sheet is 6 pages long when they kill someone)

Second...... It's just to simple and uncomplicated to work!......... Really?

I'm glad I found two penny's on the sidewalk today, because I've used up my $.02 worth previously!

 

[theLEMband]

Dude, READ my post again and then tell me if you would like to retract this statement. I took issue with the re-instating rights to a felon portion of the argument.

My apologies and my bad. I was confusing OFF and ODJ.