Oregon pro gun democrats

[drew]

We should have a place to track the democrats who are pro gun because there are obviously a lot who aren't.

Senate
Betsy Johnson
Arnie Roblan

House
Jeff Barker
Val Hoyle
Ben Unger

This list is incomplete feel free to add more.

Edit: I am not a Democrat. Someone asked so I'm putting it in my post.

Read More

 

[chris61182]

What are your criteria for being considered pro-gun? While both Barker and Unger are against any sort of AWB, they are both for the 'universal' background checks.

Unger also supports SB796, the mandatory concealed carry live fire test. Which admittedly, isn't enough just yet to disqualify him from being considered pro-gun. Except, he also whole heartedly supports SB346 the magazine capacity ban. He simply thinks we don't need them and that this law will some how magically prevent another Sandy Hook style attack.

He also wouldn't give me a straight response about where he stands on SB347, just that it's not going anywhere as a bill, but he thinks the police are the best people to stop a school shooter.

I haven't had the opportunity to speak with him since the latest bills were introduced, but I'm not holding my breath to hear anything good from him, because they all just "feel" so good and sound so 'reasonable' that it's hard to tell where exactly he's going to shake out over the various issues.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I'll get heat for this but I guess I would draw the line at universal background checks. Anything more, then they are not pro-gun! Although misguided, universal background checks are the least problematic. As long as there was no registration, maybe a loophole for family. We have to face it these guys are going to get something sooner or later.

 

[bnsaibum]

I'll get heat for this but I guess I would draw the line at universal background checks. Anything more, then they are not pro-gun! Although misguided, universal background checks are the least problematic. As long as there was no registration, maybe a loophole for family. We have to face it these guys are going to get something sooner or later.

Universal background checks will invariably fail to do anything and will lead very quickly to the realization that in order for the background check to work we need registration. Universal background checks are just as bad as any ban and arguably could be worse. A magazine capacity restriction is less burdensome, but only just. While it will achieve control (of law abiding people), it will fail to achieve it's stated goals of reducing crime and enhancing safety. NO new restrictive law is acceptable.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Universal background checks will invariably fail to do anything and will lead very quickly to the realization that in order for the background check to work we need registration. Universal background checks are just as bad as any ban and arguably could be worse. A magazine capacity restriction is less burdensome, but only just. While it will achieve control (of law abiding people), it will fail to achieve it's stated goals of reducing crime and enhancing safety. NO new restrictive law is acceptable.

Agreed, none of it is good but background checks already exist. When these idiots find out later backgroud checks don't stop mass shootings, then we can fight them on registration. When given the choice between a candidate who wants a ban on semi-autos or one who just wants to expand background checks, you have to chose the lesser of the two evils. Otherwise we lose it all, dare I say, like the last presidential election.

 

[erudne]

A Democrat is a Socialist
Socialism is defined as a 'Waypoint' on the path to Communism.
Socialists and Communists are the same, differant names for the same Godless ideolgy.
If you read the 1922 US Communist Party Manifesto created by the Founding Chapter of the USCP in CHICAGO IL you will note that it specificaly states that Communists will assume membership in the Democratic Party in order to subvert it to Communist goals, IE the destruction of America as a political and cultural entity.
For Communism to succede a Police State with no human rights must be created

 

[drew]

What are your criteria for being considered pro-gun? While both Barker and Unger are against any sort of AWB, they are both for the 'universal' background checks.

Unger also supports SB796, the mandatory concealed carry live fire test. Which admittedly, isn't enough just yet to disqualify him from being considered pro-gun. Except, he also whole heartedly supports SB346 the magazine capacity ban. He simply thinks we don't need them and that this law will some how magically prevent another Sandy Hook style attack.

He also wouldn't give me a straight response about where he stands on SB347, just that it's not going anywhere as a bill, but he thinks the police are the best people to stop a school shooter.

I haven't had the opportunity to speak with him since the latest bills were introduced, but I'm not holding my breath to hear anything good from him, because they all just "feel" so good and sound so 'reasonable' that it's hard to tell where exactly he's going to shake out over the various issues.

Good question. I didn't know all their positions on the massive number of bills. Maybe tiering to say what they support?

I just really want to know who my friends and enemies are regarding each subject. I know there's a lot that are in favor of every bill.

Before anyone says that every Democrat is an enemy, remember if every Democrat was willing to vote for the current bills our gun laws would already be written by Ceasefire and Burdick.

 

[watchman]

Any Democrat smart enough to be pro gun should also be smart enough to quit being Democrats.
Just sayin....

 

[Norm0931]

What are your criteria for being considered pro-gun? While both Barker and Unger are against any sort of AWB, they are both for the 'universal' background checks.

Unger also supports SB796, the mandatory concealed carry live fire test. Which admittedly, isn't enough just yet to disqualify him from being considered pro-gun. Except, he also whole heartedly supports SB346 the magazine capacity ban. He simply thinks we don't need them and that this law will some how magically prevent another Sandy Hook style attack.

He also wouldn't give me a straight response about where he stands on SB347, just that it's not going anywhere as a bill, but he thinks the police are the best people to stop a school shooter.

I haven't had the opportunity to speak with him since the latest bills were introduced, but I'm not holding my breath to hear anything good from him, because they all just "feel" so good and sound so 'reasonable' that it's hard to tell where exactly he's going to shake out over the various issues.

That's interesting. Someone on his staff told me he was against SB346.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Any Democrat smart enough to be pro gun should also be smart enough to quit being Democrats.
Just sayin....

Being a Democrat in Oregon is a smart move. Some of them must be Dinos Democrat in name only. Anyway drew was trying for a list of pro gun Dems. How about a short list of the ones that eveyone could agree on. Then a longer list of the least bad.

 

[Modeler]

Oregon House - Val Hoyle

 

[fuhr52]

If the new gun laws being considered won't reduce violent crimes, as stated by VP Biden, why enact they. It's obvious these laws are not addressing the issue of tragedies like Sandyhook. Progressive liberals are about emotion and we have to do something. Doesn't have to solve the problem, just has to fulfill the emotional need to do something.

 

[BAMCIS]

The only way a member of the Democrat Party (or anyone for that matter) can be pro gun is if s/he proposes legislation that lifts some of the restrictions already on the books. Not by proposing ANYTHING that limits the 2A. Including any magazine bans or gun-free killing zones.

If they just want to let things ride like they are right now then they really aren't "pro-gun".

 

[Guilty]

There are no pro-gun Democrat politicians. There are only Democrat politicians that say they are pro-gun for political purposes only. When the rubber meets the road, the vast majority of Democrat politicians will vote the Party line which is anything but pro-gun.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Unfortunately now we are trying to hold the line. It doesn't mean we're giving up the war on gun owners just because we want to contact Democratic fence sitters.
By the way on OFF's site I saw a list that gave Oregon House Val Hoyle an A-. Is this the list as it stands?

Betsy Johnson
Val Hoyle
Arnie Roblan
Jeff Barker
Ben Unger

 

[Squidly]

If the new gun laws being considered won't reduce violent crimes, as stated by VP Biden, why enact they. It's obvious these laws are not addressing the issue of tragedies like Sandyhook. Progressive liberals are about emotion and we have to do something. Doesn't have to solve the problem, just has to fulfill the emotional need to do something.

No. It's all an act to arouse and emotional response in the sheeple. They know that none of these bills will significantly reduce violence. If any of them pass, it will become apparent, and they will push for more restrictive laws. The end goal is disarmament. See post #6. So, I vote no compromise. They will take whatever ground they can. Why help them?

 

[drew]

Unfortunately now we are trying to hold the line. It doesn't mean we're giving up the war on gun owners just because we want to contact Democratic fence sitters.
By the way on OFF's site I saw a list that gave Oregon House Val Hoyle an A-. Is this the list as it stands?

Betsy Johnson
Val Hoyle
Arnie Roblan
Jeff Barker
Ben Unger

That's what I see. I updated the op. I'll look through what we've got and categorize them. I prefer more crowdsourced information.

 

[DMax]

How about we put up a sticky that lists every politician that does not support the 2A and constitution as intended and not this liberal rewrite to modernize based on there ideology. If it infringes our rights they are on the list. D,R,I included I don't know about anyone else but I am done with politicians that break the constitution to any degree going forward. We have no more rights to give up and its time to draw a line in the sand for all patriots to stand up to this grinding down of America. We don't have any more to give up and if we don't start now then when is it time to take back our liberty. Whatever it takes.

 

[grouser]

Wow! Painting an entire political party with a broad brush. In case you haven't been paying attention communism is essentially dead, with only North Korea and Cuba left. (And both N. Korea and Cuba are dictatorships.) 1922 was a long time ago and it looks like their goal has not been reached. Disagree with others, but name calling doesn't cut it.

 

[fuhr52]

No. It's all an act to arouse and emotional response in the sheeple. They know that none of these bills will significantly reduce violence. If any of them pass, it will become apparent, and they will push for more restrictive laws. The end goal is disarmament. See post #6. So, I vote no compromise. They will take whatever ground they can. Why help them?

We are saying the same thing. It's about emotion to these people not about solutions. Look at my good intentions I'm doing something. Doesn't matter if anything works. Low information voters don't care. As long as they think you care you get their vote.