Oregon Assault Weapons Ban Proposal

[Just Jim]

People lose respect for the law makers then they lose respect for the the laws they make. SB941 was done by law makers that didn't even follow the law to make sb941 so obviously people didn't follow it, and wont.

Bad part is these idiots breed contempt for the law, all law. If they are not going to follow it then why should the people. It breaks down society and soon it becomes Baltimore. Liberal progressives are fools and that is what is running this state.

 

[TheHumungus]

Like everyone on Northwestfirearms.com, I am a law abiding citizen. However, if these rumors are true, and Oregon Liberals are successful in implementing new gun restrictions, the time has come to not comply with any new restrictions on firearms. I compare it to being given an illegal order in the military. I also understand that it's a personal choice for everyone. People have homes, families, careers, lives and disobeying the law is just too huge a risk for some.

But after thinking about it some more, assuming (big assumption, I know) the rumor is valid and the Governor is successful, they will solely be counting on people to obey the law. Because if they actually tried enforcing the law, they'd have to hire many more judges and build many more prisons. Liberals hate prisons, and hate strict sentencing even more.

My guess is there will also be some Oregon sheriffs who will openly defy the Governor and refuse to enforce the new law creating a constitutional crisis. If fewer people "roll over" and accept new restrictions, the restrictions become meaningless.

Here are some things I am doing..

1. If I see a news crew doing a live shot, I plan to stop and lawfully protest them. We're all busy and have jobs and responsibilities, but doing nothing is no longer an option. For example, yesterday I made a "Ban Gun Free Zones" sign and put it in my truck. If I see a news crew on a public road or parking lot doing a live shot, I'm going to stand near them with my sign. All news stations in Portland are lock-step rabid anti-gun and believe in strict government control of the populace. Remind them that the very constitution that protects firearms, also protects their first amendment rights and rights to be liberals. I've completely stopped watching local news, and don't support their advertisers, and have switched to only trusted news sources online.
2. I don't give my business to retailers who have posted anti-gun and anti-CCL policies like Target and Regal Cinemas. I Hammer them on social media and let them know they're not getting a dime from me unless they respect all rights.
3. When I go into a school, business, or church that is unguarded, I ask the manager or person in charge why there are no guards. I hold them accountable for their decisions. Don't let social niceties or faux-politeness get in the way and directly challenge school principals why the kids are not protected. Yes, I have been called a jerk many times, but that's about the worst thing that will happen.
4. I home school my kids. The majority of public schools in the Willamette Valley are liberal indoctrination camps. I refuse to allow my kids to be exposed to that and teach them differently.
5. I directly challenge every anti-gunner who has the guts to engage me on social media. Twitter and Facebook are sewers, populated with the worst kind of human debris. But I challenge their logic, I challenge their lack of courage, and at least let them know that they can stick their PC bullying tactics up their collective behinds.
6. Donate what I can to the NRA and Gun Owners groups who are helping to fight.

I'm sure there are other things people can do as well.

 

[fxdc]

Flagstaff Arizona
Here we come!

Just waiting for the market o get better.

 

[PrDubi]

I am the Hawaiian looking guy( I'm actually half Hungarian-Spanish Filipino). I was usually carrying a huge sign of this one.

 

[Deebow]

So, a guy who didn't use an "assault weapon" and bought all of his guns legally to commit his crime necessitates a state ban on "assault weapons" in the form of a new law, which only affects the law abiding citizen (which until the moment the d-nozzle starting shooting he was one).

Bunch of rocket scientists running our state I tell you.

This ban would mean that my family and I would be moving. I have family in Idaho and can move my work, so that makes me lucky I guess. Don't know if I would go north to WA in Vancooty-ville, as the disease keeps spreading.

But moving further from tyranny means better living conditions for me and my family, so in the long run, we might be packing up the homestead and GTFO.

 

[Just Jim]

I wonder if people realize what a ban is. Its property that was legal when you bought it and your right by law is backed by the constitution to carry it is thrown out. Your property is siezed for what they want to pay and if you are making a life buying and selling your property that life will end in this state.

You are denied the best tools to defend your life and family.

 

[WareWolf]

I will be moving if any further rights are infringed. This is stupid, guns are not a top cause of death, and the checks in place have not worked. Take away the guns and I pity the deaths caused by bombs, fires, and other objects turned weapons that they will blame next.

 

[bakersman345]

You all should abandon oregon. Come to Washington (we aren't much better) so we at least we'll stand a chance together. Ether that or the left Coast is lost an I'll end up in Idaho

 

[tkdguy]

I could retire somewhere else. Remember the 1994 Crime Bill---Dem lost heavily and Billy Clinton said the price they paid for the crime bill was not worth it--they lost control and influence of their agenda. . Further studies of the effects of the assault weapons ban and 10 round magazine limit essentially had a null effect on crime.

 

[Stomper]

Facts DON'T MATTER to them....




I posted a thread with this, but here it is again:






American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

 

[Oregonhunter5]

My Christian beliefs are under attack under life and death assault. I will be protecting me and mine with all means i deem fit.

When red dawn happens, I won't be shooting my Brownings.

 

[Just Jim]

Again, what do they know is comming that they are making a big push to take away guns?

 

[Oregonhunter5]

I don't think they know.
But Kate is in for the re-election.

But I will say we need a national leader in this. And it's not a republican president.

Who's gonna organize this? Who's got the power and money?

 

[bolus]

I think what would be disappointing if something like this goes through is not being able to participate much here on the forums. Who wants to post a pic of their new bullet button or 4 rounds magazine? Oh, and here's a tutorial on how to cut off your flash hider. Not like Im going to make is public that Im working on a receiver for a now illegal AR or FAL.

bah, depressing...

 

[DuneHopper]

I will be moving if any further rights are infringed. This is stupid, guns are not a top cause of death, and the checks in place have not worked. Take away the guns and I pity the deaths caused by bombs, fires, and other objects turned weapons that they will blame next.

I don't think they know.
But Kate is in for the re-election.
But I will say we need a national leader in this. And it's not a republican president.
Who's gonna organize this? Who's got the power and money?

I don't have power and money. But I do have powder !

 

[DuneHopper]

I think what would be disappointing if something like this goes through is not being able to participate much here on the forums. Who wants to post a pic of their new bullet button or 4 rounds magazine? Oh, and here's a tutorial on how to cut off your flash hider. Not like Im going to make is public that Im working on a receiver for a now illegal AR or FAL.
bah, depressing...

This would indeed be a bad thing.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Facts DON'T MATTER to them....




I posted a thread with this, but here it is again:






American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

Tell them to work to fix the real problem (mental health) instead of pushing their anti-gun agenda!!!!!

 

[Stomper]

They can't... that would mean they'd have to address themselves.

 

[gunfriendly]

Let's be proactive about this. Sitting around and just mailing and calling people isn't going to stop them, i guarantee you that they put you in the spam folder and throw out the mail you send. Be a visual force to be reckon with, and protest. It will make them think twice.

 

[Martini_Up]

Just when you think it's time to bury your guns it is in fact time to dig them up. I'll go into the ground before my guns will. I know what is right and what is tyranny. I'm too old and too tired to mess around with a re-run of a 90's ban which did nothing but take away rights/freedom.

Here's to you MF's....