Oregon IPs 17 and 18 - They're back at it...

[nammac]

17 and 18 fully endorsed by Ceasefire Oregon.

More from them below...

Affordable and effective technology exists today that would improve safety standards for guns and gun ownership. This includes:

• A microstamped code on each bullet that links it to a specific gun 26
• Magazine disconnect mechanisms (MDM) that prevent a gun from loading a bullet in the chamber 27
• Loaded chamber indicator (LCI or CLI) to show that bullets are still in the gun 28
• "Smart guns" with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or biometric recognition (fingerprint) capability. 29

Banning assault rifles like the AR 15 and high-capacity magazines that hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition will greatly reduce death and injury.

How's that war on drugs going????

There are dreams and aspirations that the task masters have, but impossible to realize…

How many hundreds of thousands of guns in Oregon would be subjected to this nonsense?

And just how will they prevent the interstate flow into Oregon from other states? A gun check station not unlike the citrus/fruit/plant check station?

Morons…. And not the Tab and apple kind either…

 

[SonicBlue03]

Public can get the signature sheets online now. <----------------------------

1. Safer Owners – achieved by requiring anyone buying a gun to have a Permit-to-Purchase 2. Permits-to-Purchase will require: (a) a completed background check – no loopholes; and (b) both classroom and live-fire training. 3. Safer Firearms – achieved by restricting future sale and manufacture of ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds. 4. Exceptions: (a) future manufacture of magazines will require they be stamped as made after the effective date and their use will be limited to military and law enforcement; and (b) large-capacity magazines owned on the effective date of the Act may be retained and used on a restricted basis, but not sold/transferred.

1. The future manufacture, import, possession, use, purchase and otherwise transferring of "semiautomatic assault firearms" (as defined in the Act) are banned. 2. Those owned prior to the effective date of the Act must, within 180 days, be sold to licensed dealers, turned in for destruction, permanently disabled or, if retained, then registered with the State Police. 3. The retained firearms are restricted to use at home, shooting ranges, shooting competitions and some outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, provided they are unloaded and locked when being transported. 4. Exceptions exist for manufacturing and sales solely for military and law enforcement purposes.

Hypothetically, I wonder if the authors of this realize that if they're willing to push for the criminalization of hundreds of thousands of law abiding gun owners in this state, those gun owners have very little reason to obey the other laws that exist and protect said authors.

Seems short-sighted to me.

 

[Idaho44]

How about an IP to defund Churches and remove any tax exemptions or charity status? Separation of church and state, why are they allowed to seek legislation to oppress?

 

[Aero Denezol]

17 and 18 fully endorsed by Ceasefire Oregon.

More from them below...

Affordable and effective technology exists today that would improve safety standards for guns and gun ownership. This includes:

• A microstamped code on each bullet that links it to a specific gun 26
• Magazine disconnect mechanisms (MDM) that prevent a gun from loading a bullet in the chamber 27
• Loaded chamber indicator (LCI or CLI) to show that bullets are still in the gun 28
• "Smart guns" with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or biometric recognition (fingerprint) capability. 29

Banning assault rifles like the AR 15 and high-capacity magazines that hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition will greatly reduce death and injury.

Ridiculous, I'm not going to do any of that. I will go to Court over it.

Hypothetically, I wonder if the authors of this realize that if they're willing to push for the criminalization of hundreds of thousands of law abiding gun owners in this state

They don't like us and don't care. The ultimate goal is to have no guns in private citizens hands.

 

[dancinghippos]

How about an IP to defund Churches and remove any tax exemptions or charity status? Separation of church and state, why are they allowed to seek legislation to oppress?

Don't blame all churches for what that one does. That church blames all gun owners for what a handful of gun owners do.

 

[ar man]

How about an IP to defund Churches and remove any tax exemptions or charity status? Separation of church and state, why are they allowed to seek legislation to oppress?

I am 100% with this one we will also be nice and throw in a free mental health evaluation as a bonus lol

 

[dancinghippos]

Does this seem like a good introductory page for a website opposing these initiatives? Please comment. Maybe help shorten it.

A Portland group is collecting signatures to put gun-control initiatives on the ballot. Please decline to sign if asked. Don't give up your rights of self protection. Those laws don't affect crime.

IP17 and IP18 punish law-abiding people who are NOT the problem, and do nothing about criminals who ARE the problem. People who already ignore assault and murder laws also ignore gun laws. You know this is true because repeat offenders are forbidden from having guns, but they have them anyway. What does stop attackers? Often it is someone else with a gun - the gun these feel-good initiatives punish you for having.

How do we know those laws have no effect on crime?
In 1994, Congress passed laws restricting semi-automatic weapons and magazine sizes. The law had a 10-year sunset provision. Researchers from both sides of that issue studied its effects on crime over the following decade and found no effect on crime. Because of those results, Congress let the law sunset.

How else do we know those laws don't affect crime?
Ask any police officer if laws banning so-called "semi-automatic" weapons or larger magazines affect crime. They will tell you no. PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 15,000 members on gun control policies in 2013. 71% of respondents said that a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime. 20% of the respondents said it would make crime worse. The numbers were even more striking when asking about magazine size restrictions.
This is a link to a summary page:

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

www.police1.com

Gun control doesn't work. Repeat offender control does work. Why not do that instead? Because it takes political courage, which our politicians don't have. Easier to blame gun owners. Don't buy it.

You may not be worried about self-protection today. Do you really want to make that a lifetime decision? Maybe an ex gets violent or people from a close-by encampment show up in your house, or other predators become an immediate emergency. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. They write good reports, but they can't protect you quickly enough to matter. When you need protection, you want the ability to get it. You don't want to pay with your rights for the crimes of a handful of repeat offenders who should have been in jail.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Most people won't read what it won't do. If you want to hit it, hit it clean, hit it succinctly, and point out to people what these initiatives do to them.


List out a few of the "assault weapons" that aren't that it bans. All the ones that aren't AR-platform. Point out that to be compliant, you have to be on a list.

 

[AshWilliams]

Most people won't read what it won't do. If you want to hit it, hit it clean, hit it succinctly, and point out to people what these initiatives do to them.


List out a few of the "assault weapons" that aren't that it bans. All the ones that aren't AR-platform. Point out that to be compliant, you have to be on a list.

Agreed, but unfortunately that's not how politics are done. They have an agenda and they'll use whatever subterfuge they can muster to get this legislation passed.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I'd honestly go further. "If you vote for this, you hate black people. Why? Black people have been under assault by law enforcement and government as we saw with George Floyd. A lot of you claim to be allied in wanting change. But voting for this, you take those very people you claim to ally with and put them on a list controlled by the police.
Does an ally do that? No. Someone who hates black people does."

If you're unwilling to use the left's playbook and take it to another level, there's no chance of moving the needle. Sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[Zoolander]

Mentioning the majority of gun crimes committed in Portland the news covers are with handguns not rifles may be helpful as well.

 

[srxfan]

I saw this thread (linked) the other day and thought that perhaps it has a more convincing way to argue for the 2A. My summation below:

Guns in society, like many things, are fundamentially a cost/benefit trade-off. We tolerate the costs of cars/knives etc because we perceive a greater benefit. For firearms ownership by the public, many anti-gunners only see the costs and cannot see benefit. The video/speech linked below puts it simply that we must also consider the benefit - one direct one that may be convincing is that even the CDC (seen as favorable by many, especially anti-gunners) reports 60k-2.5m defensive gun uses per year. Versus 40k (2019) gun deaths (of which 10k are non-suicides), at the minimum estimate of 60k, that is still 50% more potential lives saved than lost, needless to say what if it is on the middle or even higher end of that estimate.

Best speech on gun control I’ve heard in a long time.

Found this video on you-tube. Looks like it’s 9-10 years old, but applies more today than ever. Wish we could get congress to watch it - not that it’d change any of their warped minds…. It’s kind of long, but good...

www.northwestfirearms.com

CDC page with defensive gun use reference:

Fast Facts: Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.

www.cdc.gov

The other benefit, that I see, of a publicly armed society is indeed what the 2A was written for, to keep power in the public's hands. This is harder to quantify. Perhaps one way to highlight this benefit is to imagine whether laws against free speech/etc would have real hold if the public could fight back. Cue the fairly well known quote from The Gulag Archipelago (Solzhenitsyn) about the citizenry vs (tyrannical) gov't. Some will say that is idealistic and not real, but I think any gov't implementing something really not kosher would have to think about how an armed citizenry would respond, even if in the end they could corral the forces necessary to oppress. The idea of 2A as an insurance policy is useful but it also raises the fair question of, is it worth the cost to have?

In the end, someone may still decide that the benefits are not worth the cost, but I think one huge win in talking about cost/benefit is that takes some or all of the edge off of the (naturally human and understandable) emotional responses to the costs of guns in our society. It may take their moral outrage to a lower level, which could open the door to seeing the benefits of 2A.

The arguments about 2A/self-defense being a natural right, etc., I feel get into emotional territory more than practical and are less convincing to most anti-gunners. It is also subject to the similar argument of "what about my right to not be killed by a gun," straw-man that it is. It is a useful tool and some may be sympathetic to it so keep it around for those you may encounter.

 

[srxfan]

Does this seem like a good introductory page for a website opposing these initiatives? Please comment. Maybe help shorten it.

A Portland group is collecting signatures to put gun-control initiatives on the ballot. Please decline to sign if asked. Don't give up your rights of self protection. Those laws don't affect crime.

IP17 and IP18 punish law-abiding people who are NOT the problem, and do nothing about criminals who ARE the problem. People who already ignore assault and murder laws also ignore gun laws. You know this is true because repeat offenders are forbidden from having guns, but they have them anyway. What does stop attackers? Often it is someone else with a gun - the gun these feel-good initiatives punish you for having.

How do we know those laws have no effect on crime?
In 1994, Congress passed laws restricting semi-automatic weapons and magazine sizes. The law had a 10-year sunset provision. Researchers from both sides of that issue studied its effects on crime over the following decade and found no effect on crime. Because of those results, Congress let the law sunset.

How else do we know those laws don't affect crime?
Ask any police officer if laws banning so-called "semi-automatic" weapons or larger magazines affect crime. They will tell you no. PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 15,000 members on gun control policies in 2013. 71% of respondents said that a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime. 20% of the respondents said it would make crime worse. The numbers were even more striking when asking about magazine size restrictions.
This is a link to a summary page:

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

www.police1.com

Gun control doesn't work. Repeat offender control does work. Why not do that instead? Because it takes political courage, which our politicians don't have. Easier to blame gun owners. Don't buy it.

You may not be worried about self-protection today. Do you really want to make that a lifetime decision? Maybe an ex gets violent or people from a close-by encampment show up in your house, or other predators become an immediate emergency. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. They write good reports, but they can't protect you quickly enough to matter. When you need protection, you want the ability to get it. You don't want to pay with your rights for the crimes of a handful of repeat offenders who should have been in jail.

I think the appeals to authority (research, police surveys) have real potential to be effective amongst many on the fence, and even an anti-gunner open to reason in good faith would have to consider them in their arguments. I like this overall. I can think of anti-gun arguments to raise in response to some of this but I am not sure how to articulate them yet.

 

[bbbass]

I saw this thread (linked) the other day and thought that perhaps it has a more convincing way to argue for the 2A. My summation below:

Don't try to reach them with facts.... facts don't matter to emotionally driven people.

 

[Aero Denezol]

Don't try to reach them with facts.... facts don't matter to emotionally driven people.

Facts and logic: tools of the evil Eurocentric Patriarchy.

("science" is okay though)

 

[bbbass]

Facts and logic: tools of the evil Eurocentric Patriarchy.

("science" is okay though)

White privilege...

BTW, University Prof says that science is racist.

 

[dancinghippos]

Mentioning the majority of gun crimes committed in Portland the news covers are with handguns not rifles may be helpful as well.

Agree, but then they will use that to justify a new ban

 

[Zoolander]

Agree, but then they will use that to justify a new ban

I don't see a handgun ban having the same support as a rifle ban. However, it's all theoretical either way.

 

[dancinghippos]

I don't see a handgun ban having the same support as a rifle ban. However, it's all theoretical either way.

Hoping you are correct, but, people tend to think what they are told to think by subtle influences. If they get a rifle ban, then suddenly the press and TV entertainment show producers "realize" the problem was handguns all along and ramp up the propaganda campaign against them instead.

 

[Zoolander]

Valid point.