Oregon Assault Weapons Ban Proposal

[etrain16]

Funny how I read here today that it's not business and money, yet when anything happens people blame Bloomberg's deep pockets.

Most people educated in running a successful business are taught that value is derived by what your paying customers feel about your service. Most not educated people figure it out or they don't start in business very long.

If anti gun people are paying the majority, which is what I keep seeing reported about Bloomberg and a few other deep pocketed folks, then of course the agendas align with anti gun movements. Same way deep pockets from a very small number of families fund presidential candidates.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Certainly you understand this is a more complex issue than just one simple answer - money. If you want to go there, the one word I would choose is power. Money is a means to power, it is not the end all of power.

There is a larger agenda at work here than media outlets making a profit. I think that should be fairly obvious to most folks. Fox tends to the right in their reporting. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Al Jazeera, PBS all lean to the left. That's not speculation, anyone spending some time watching their broadcasts can see that for themselves. And it's not exactly a big secret, most folks are aware of this bias, and make their choice about who to watch based on their personal preferences. There are a number of articles online, such as the Washington Post, that ranked the various news agencies by bias - their assessment agrees with what I presented here.

But do big money and political bias have to be exclusive? Obviously there are a lot of people out there that want strict gun control. The media controls, largely, how that message is disseminated and, in many cases, interpreted, by the masses. They can carefully choose what to share or not to share, what stories should be presented, and how they should be presented.

When big money is needed to swing votes, Bloomberg is there. When money is needed to run more ads, Bloomberg is there. It's a big bonus for them when their idealogical pathway and financial backing meet in the same place.

Make no mistake about it. There is an assault on our gun rights. It is coming from multiple directions. Bloomberg is one of several. Politicians with a chip on their shoulder are another. And the media outlets in this area are, by and large, on the side of the anti-gun crowd. I don't know if it's that you disagree with that sentiment or not, I can't quite tell. But if you're not convinced by what you see, or don't see, I'm not going to change your mind. I will simply say that many here are not so naive as to believe there isn't something far bigger than basic business principles at work here. It's not always about the money, especially when your end goal is control. Once you have control, you can have all the money you like.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

"Keep and Bear Arms" is nothing less than America's very own fight for the "holy land", our very own "Jerusalem", our sublime cause....take em or keep em.

So much focus on that one thing, in the hands of people; a gun.

The great equalizer; the universal focal-point. I have never met a person who is indifferent to gun ownership.

Mea Culpa; I consider mine to have an equal importance as any part of my body...I cannot, I will not live without them.

 

[U8395279]

I guess my only response to that, is that marriage is a religious act.

Your statement here could not be further from the truth. Marriage is a CIVIL ACT here in the United States. Marriage licenses are given by the local county government, not by any church. One does not have to ever set foot in church in order to get married.

I've always been a big supporter of the right of same sex couples to marry. Surely you must not be so isolated from current events that you do not know that earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses was a violation of the US Constitution?

Sorry, but religion and religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with this issue.

Tell me this: If our Governor cannot commit to being faithful to her own husband, then how are we expect her to ever be faithful to the people of Oregon, and to Oregon's Constitution??

This is a matter of trust and personal integrity, and nothing else.

.

 

[WareWolf]

Your statement here could not be further from the truth. Marriage is a CIVIL ACT here in the United States. Marriage licenses are given by the local county government, not by any church. One does not have to ever set foot in church in order to get married.

I've always been a big supporter of the right of same sex couples to marry. Surely you must not be so isolated from current events that you do not know that earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses was a violation of the US Constitution?

Sorry, but religion and religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with this issue.

Tell me this: If our Governor cannot commit to being faithful to her own husband, then how are we expect her to ever be faithful to the people of Oregon, and to Oregon's Constitution??

This is a matter of trust and personal integrity, and nothing else.

.

You pulled what I said out of context.

Marriage is older than the United States.. The act of it is based on religion and customs, not a government that one day said "would it be cool to track people that have kids and stick around to get a tax credit and share benefits packages?".

Within the context of my statement, we were discussing mud slinging over how two people conduct their relationships. Not everyone is Christian, not everyone is straight, not everyone is monogamous, yet none of it has to do with being good or bad people. For all you know they have a strong relationship that allows that behavior.

It's not a gun issue, or a government issue, or for you or anyone else to judge what works for them or anyone else.

This is always such a sad commentary.. People on the anti gun side always want everyone to conform to their perfect picture of society, people on the pro side are no better...

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

What can we do to prevent a ban from happening? Ideas?

Know a Teacher? Talk to them about how unsafe they are, like sitting ducks. Talk to them about how the Dems that keep getting voted in are eroding the rights of good people to be armed against bad guys.

Remind them that it's the Union backed Dems that instead of promoting armed guards and chl holders in Schools, they keep pushing for gun free zones, aka shooting galleries!

Uncomfortable conversation to have with your kid's Teacher or a fellow PTA member but it might get their minds off their fat PERS long enough to Vote against the anti self defense Party next time.

 

[U8395279]

You pulled what I said out of context.

No, it is actually you here that is absolutely guilty of taking what I said out of context. That is because I said absolutely nothing at all about religion in my earlier statement, yet you have been constantly trying to twist this conversation into becoming a religious debate, when it actually has nothing at all to do with religion.


As I said before, it has to do with trust and integrity, which are fundamental values that any society is built on.

Do you trust Governor Brown? I would personally trust a 6 ft rattlesnake much more than her.

 

[WareWolf]

No, it is actually you here that is absolutely guilty of taking what I said out of context. That is because I said absolutely nothing at all about religion in my earlier statement, yet you have been constantly trying to twist this conversation into becoming a religious debate, when it actually has nothing at all to do with religion.


As I said before, it has to do with trust and integrity, which are fundamental values that any society is built on.

Do you trust Governor Brown? I would personally trust a 6 ft rattlesnake much more than her.

Just to be clear, my comments about religion were all within context of the conversation judging peoples beliefs, since the thread moved over to calling Kate brown a carpet licker and attacking her integrity due to her kissing another women.

My stance was that the debate appropriate to this thread was a challenge because firearms are a cultural challenge, since a large part of the culture in this country do not see firearms as a value. Then I went on to discuss how we needed to try and fix that by promoting more positive interactions with the community, even those not for firearms. By pulling bigotry, frequently driven by religious morals into the message, we will lose the public's ear.

Who is the majority that votes our laws and law makers? The public, and they are watching our community under a magnifier because the media makes us look bad, mostly through stereotyping the community into rednecks, bible thumpers, and paranoid people.

The dissonance among pro gunners is amazing. All the anti's have to do is show a single kid die, and they unify communities from all walks of life to believe that guns can't be used responsibly or in positive manners. We can't combat that public image problem by attacking people. It looks weak because it's misdirection from our issue we want to support. It looks like what anyone with a public grade school education was taught is bad behavior, and generations of those people grew up and are watching us.

I was simply hoping we wouldn't feed the wolves...

 

[Martini_Up]

There is a lot in this thread to read. All I can say is it is way past the time where The People declaring a state of emergency and take it all back.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Some scum bag shoots up a school with a handgun so lets ban "assault rifles". Typical "common sense".

The focus will be on semi-autos of any stripe and their magazine capacity.

 

[U8395279]

The dissonance among pro gunners is amazing.

That is probably because we still maintain the ability to think for ourselves, and form our own personal opinions, while the other side has become a bunch of mindless automatons, eager to believe whatever nonsense is fed to them by political leaders and the media.

Other societies have experimented with making opinions unanimous and uniform. However, that often ends up with bad results:

 

[etrain16]

This is always such a sad commentary.. People on the anti gun side always want everyone to conform to their perfect picture of society, people on the pro side are no better...

I can't agree with that statement. There is one very distinct difference between the two sides. The pro-gun side is simply asking that their right to keep and bear arms remain untouched, uninfringed. They are not out asking to pass laws to force people that have no desire to own guns to be required to own them (save for one town in Georgia). They want to be left alone without arbitrary restrictions, government lists, taxes, etc, all based on their constitutional rights.

The anti-gun side, however does want to take rights from others. They do want to infringe. They do want to force others to live under their anti-gun choices. They are not content to live and let live. If they had their way, they would end gun ownership today.

Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two sides. All other partisan issues aside, only one group, the anti-gun group, is seeking to take rights away from others based on their personal views. This has pit the pro-gun side on the defensive for several decades now. And that is very frustrating. No wonder pro-gun folks get so worked up.

 

[WareWolf]

That is probably because we still maintain the ability to think for ourselves, and form our own personal opinions, while the other side has become a bunch of mindless automatons, eager to believe whatever nonsense is fed to them by political leaders and the media.

Other societies have experimented with making opinions unanimous and uniform. However, that often ends up with bad results:


View attachment 259413

I agree, we are all thinking for ourselves, and that is a wonderful freedom. Unfortunately it creates a monumental challenge for our side as well though, when we can't create a clear and concise message to try and get the public to understand things from our perspective.

We have mountains of statistics, we have legal grounding in our Constitution, we have historical evidence of what happens when people don't stand their ground, and we have a culture that we don't want to lose. Much of this puts us into reacting emotionally, and just with the above we can lose people with overwhelming evidence.

When we start being rude, or debating non Firearm topics to try and go around debating out rights and instead attach other properties about the opposition to discredit, we take the limited attention span we already get, and we shut it down with needless noise. At the same time we are giving ammo for the liberals to continue brain washing the rest of the the people we need to listen to our side so we can hope to free a few more minds.

 

[WareWolf]

I can't agree with that statement. There is one very distinct difference between the two sides. The pro-gun side is simply asking that their right to keep and bear arms remain untouched, uninfringed. They are not out asking to pass laws to force people that have no desire to own guns to be required to own them (save for one town in Georgia). They want to be left alone without arbitrary restrictions, government lists, taxes, etc, all based on their constitutional rights.

The anti-gun side, however does want to take rights from others. They do want to infringe. They do want to force others to live under their anti-gun choices. They are not content to live and let live. If they had their way, they would end gun ownership today.

Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two sides. All other partisan issues aside, only one group, the anti-gun group, is seeking to take rights away from others based on their personal views. This has pit the pro-gun side on the defensive for several decades now. And that is very frustrating. No wonder pro-gun folks get so worked up.

There is always compromise when you must cohabit the land. Neither side wants to listen to the reasons from the other. Both have an ideal society. Pro gun is pro freedom, and anti gun is a false sense of safety, where strict control is safe. It doesn't matter that you disagree, it's what they choose to believe, which means we must have a conversation with people of that mentality even when it hurts.

While the media can be blamed for shaping of the anti freedom messaging, many people truly stand firm in their beliefs without the sway. Even worse, many people don't feel they are interested enough or responsible for how the nation grows or falls apart, so they don't even form an opinion or educate themselves to have a balanced and responsible vote for leadership or legislation.

We need everyone we can get. If that means stepping out of comfort zones to take a non white, non straight, non Christian, questionably statused person (docs are easy to fake) that may someday vote onto a firing range to get them shooting a couple round and leaving with a grin at the sound of the bullet connecting to a steel plate, then so be it.

 

[Raidingtime]

Just to be clear, my comments about religion were all within context of the conversation judging peoples beliefs, since the thread moved over to calling Kate brown a carpet licker and attacking her integrity due to her kissing another women.

My stance was that the debate appropriate to this thread was a challenge because firearms are a cultural challenge, since a large part of the culture in this country do not see firearms as a value. Then I went on to discuss how we needed to try and fix that by promoting more positive interactions with the community, even those not for firearms. By pulling bigotry, frequently driven by religious morals into the message, we will lose the public's ear.

Who is the majority that votes our laws and law makers? The public, and they are watching our community under a magnifier because the media makes us look bad, mostly through stereotyping the community into rednecks, bible thumpers, and paranoid people.

The dissonance among pro gunners is amazing. All the anti's have to do is show a single kid die, and they unify communities from all walks of life to believe that guns can't be used responsibly or in positive manners. We can't combat that public image problem by attacking people. It looks weak because it's misdirection from our issue we want to support. It looks like what anyone with a public grade school education was taught is bad behavior, and generations of those people grew up and are watching us.

I was simply hoping we wouldn't feed the wolves...

Well said warewolf. The firearm community is sometimes it's own worst enemy. We need to reach out a discussion with all communities.

 

[mrblond]

In my opinion, Unless there is a direct threat of the lawmakers NOT being elected for their next terms, they will simply push whatever they want to do down our throats.
There could be though a few on the left who are so rabid, they will be willing to sacrifice their political careers to get whatever laws through.

 

[etrain16]

There is always compromise when you must cohabit the land. Neither side wants to listen to the reasons from the other. Both have an ideal society. Pro gun is pro freedom, and anti gun is a false sense of safety, where strict control is safe. It doesn't matter that you disagree, it's what they choose to believe, which means we must have a conversation with people of that mentality even when it hurts.

While the media can be blamed for shaping of the anti freedom messaging, many people truly stand firm in their beliefs without the sway. Even worse, many people don't feel they are interested enough or responsible for how the nation grows or falls apart, so they don't even form an opinion or educate themselves to have a balanced and responsible vote for leadership or legislation.

We need everyone we can get. If that means stepping out of comfort zones to take a non white, non straight, non Christian, illegal immigrant that may someday vote onto a firing range to get them shooting a couple round and leaving with a grin at the sound of the bullet connecting to a steel plate, then so be it.

Your last statement is irresponsible. There is no way I'm going to take an illegal immigrant and put a gun in their hand. Did you really mean what you wrote there?? That could potentially be a felony offense, not to mention remarkably stupid.

That aside, you seem to make some pretty sweeping judgments about pro-gun people that I don't think are well founded. Rather, you seem to be passing along the same skewed view of pro-gun people that the media portrays - white, Christian, bigot, homophobe, hate-filled, ignorant backwater morons that only know their guns and their God.

Making those types of assumptions hardly help the pro-gun side, instead it only serves to push yet even more disinformation out there about gun owners. Can you seriously say that the lawful gun owners of Oregon (or the nation for that matter) fall into the category you described above? Really? Cause let me tell you, you're wrong.

I have met, and shot with, people from many different backgrounds. Male and female. Gay and straight. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native American. We are united in our love of freedom, patriotism and the security of knowing that we have a gun to protect ourselves and our family.

You know it really irks me that you would come here and make those kinds of assumptions about the people here, or about gun-owners in general. If you had spent some time on this forum, you would have found plenty of folks here that are 'live and let live' people - they don't care what your sexual preferences are, they don't care what color you are. If anything, the biggest hangup is political preference, because there is one party in this state that is actively going after our rights - so that's to be expected.

I don't know if you're trying to start an argument or what, but my suggestion is that you stop making assumptions about people you've never met. I don't see how that will help the pro-gun side in any way.

And as far as people shooting with me, I'll happily take any newbie/anti-gunner out to let them shoot. I'll teach them about guns. I'll show them gun safety. I'll even supply some of my own ammo to do it. I would have no problem taking a gay Hispanic atheist out to shoot, heck any new converts to the pro-gun side can only benefit us in the long run. My biggest requirement is that they are not a criminal, and that goes for people illegally here in the country.

You know what, I need to add this too - why on Earth should it be my responsibility to correct the false judgment people have about myself and fellow gun owners?? Sounds to me that they are the ones with the problem. If they assume we're all the same, then doesn't that make them guilty of the very discrimination they seem to decry? They tell us not to judge a group based on the actions of a few individuals, then they do just that to us. Someone commits a gun crime, and suddenly we're all white racist bigot gun owners waiting to shoot our next victim.

No, that is their problem. If they can't see us for who we really are, then they need to correct their perceptions. Maybe instead of us going to find them to shoot, maybe they should get off their high-horses and come and find us, and learn more about us, before they condemn us and take our rights away.

Good grief. I am really getting tired of being the one that has to be on the defense, to prove myself (ourselves) to everyone else.

 

[WareWolf]

Your last statement is irresponsible. There is no way I'm going to take an illegal immigrant and put a gun in their hand. Did you really mean what you wrote there?? That could potentially be a felony offense, not to mention remarkably stupid.

That aside, you seem to make some pretty sweeping judgments about pro-gun people that I don't think are well founded. Rather, you seem to be passing along the same skewed view of pro-gun people that the media portrays - white, Christian, bigot, homophobe, hate-filled, ignorant backwater morons that only know their guns and their God.

Making those types of assumptions hardly help the pro-gun side, instead it only serves to push yet even more disinformation out there about gun owners. Can you seriously say that the lawful gun owners of Oregon (or the nation for that matter) fall into the category you described above? Really? Cause let me tell you, you're wrong.

I have met, and shot with, people from many different backgrounds. Male and female. Gay and straight. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native American. We are united in our love of freedom, patriotism and the security of knowing that we have a gun to protect ourselves and our family.

You know it really irks me that you would come here and make those kinds of assumptions about the people here, or about gun-owners in general. If you had spent some time on this forum, you would have found plenty of folks here that are 'live and let live' people - they don't care what your sexual preferences are, they don't care what color you are. If anything, the biggest hangup is political preference, because there is one party in this state that is actively going after our rights - so that's to be expected.

I don't know if you're trying to start an argument or what, but my suggestion is that you stop making assumptions about people you've never met. I don't see how that will help the pro-gun side in any way.

And as far as people shooting with me, I'll happily take any newbie/anti-gunner out to let them shoot. I'll teach them about guns. I'll show them gun safety. I'll even supply some of my own ammo to do it. I would have no problem taking a gay Hispanic atheist out to shoot, heck any new converts to the pro-gun side can only benefit us in the long run. My biggest requirement is that they are not a criminal, and that goes for people illegally here in the country.

I did not call anyone anything, or pass my judgement on this community. I described the misinterpretation about this community that you yourself described. And I pitched that reply in a long discussion about forcing belief systems and or pushing away outsiders. This is a challenge when jumping into a conversation that had been ongoing for days and pages.

I myself have about a diverse a set of shooting buddies as you can get.

As for arming illegal immigrants, I was simply trying to make a point about breaking down barriers and will retract that part of it truly offends you.

 

[etrain16]

I did not call anyone anything. I described the misinterpretation about this community that you yourself described. And I pitched that reply in a long discussion about forcing belief systems and or pushing away outsiders.

I myself have about a diverse a set of shooting buddies as you can get.

As for arming illegal immigrants, I was simply trying to make a point about breaking down barriers and will retract that part of it truly offends you.

It doesn't offend me, but it does concern me.

The point I'm making though is that you are suggesting that WE need to correct the misconception people have about us. WE need to reach out. WE need to prove we're not the psychos they think we are.

My point is, why should WE have to prove anything? Why can't they do their research and find out we're not who the media portrays us to be?

 

[Caveman Jim]

I agree a new strategy may be in order, but the ideals are not losing by mud slinging, it's losing because pro gun folks are doing very little to demonstrate responsible ways to use firearms. Liberals are using media to overload society, pro gun folks, anti folks, and indifferent people with negative views.

It doesn't matter that a million guns are on the streets daily without evil, it matters that we have little contributions to counter the few negatives because guns are currently a taboo we try and hide with conceal carry, and attitudes that drive outsiders away from our culture.

This month has a lot of activities to try and draw women into shooting that raises money for breast cancer. Activities like that need to shine in the public face if we want to win.

This is a war of hearts, not a war of logic.. We keep bringing the wrong tools to the table. Think there is a quote about knives and gun fights that might relate.

Do you actually think that knowing the money came from guns orgs that they will quietly accept? They are in the same agenda game my friend.

 

[WareWolf]

It doesn't offend me, but it does concern me.

The point I'm making though is that you are suggesting that WE need to correct the misconception people have about us. WE need to reach out. WE need to prove we're not the psychos they think we are.

My point is, why should WE have to prove anything? Why can't they do their research and find out we're not who the media portrays us to be?

We should we? Because we want to win... Right?

I have seen plenty of people on here that claim willingness to take arms and start taking lives to get their way. How short sighted is it too not see that as terrifying from the other side? The side that may want your guns, may want nothing, and may just not care to be involved.

The second we are start behaving like violent people, or attacking them by faulting them personally because it conflicts with beliefs of their own etc, THAT puts you on their radar when you might otherwise have not been. Now instead of dealing with an uninformed person, you are trying to reverse the fear and hate just to get to your agenda.

Fyi.. Auto correct is making this a pain...