SB 941 Now in House Committee

Koda · May 5, 2015

etrain16 said:
I'm an NRA member and consider another option I don't see being discussed of late. The NRA, which has far more experience in these arenas than myself and, I suspect, anyone else on this forum, knows far better than us where and when limited resources will get the biggest bang for the buck. They already work on a national level in D.C., which isn't cheap, and they do fight on the state level, in varying degrees.

They can't outspend Bloomberg, not by a longshot. So, what would make good sense with the limited resources they have? Mounting an all-out battle in Oregon or Washington, where the cards are tipped heavily against them? Or perhaps to focus resources where they can do the most good.

Sure, I'd love to see the NRA blitz the state with ads, lawyers and lobbying, but I suspect it just doesn't pencil out. I've been in business long enough to know that there are some risks worth taking, and others to leave be. And that's especially tough when you're the one that misses out.

I will continue to support the NRA, and to ask them for more support in Oregon. But I have to be realistic and understand that, like any business, they don't have the resources to do everything they want or even need to do. Bloomberg has a huge coffer of funds that will keep him going for years. What we really need is a wealthy pro-gun benefactor that can counter that lunatic. Until then, I expect folks like OFF and SAF to take the lead at the state level. And I don't begrudge the NRA for making the tough decisions that have to be made for them to remain viable for the really big fights - like helping to block the recent attempted ammo ban - they were very instrumental in gathering legislative opposition - and I appreciate their work in that regard.

In the end, we can't sit around waiting for someone else to do the work for us. The more we can educate and mobilize in our efforts, the more chance we have to defeat them. And what sends a stronger message to Salem - a big outside influence like the NRA stops them, or the voters of Oregon? I'll say the voters are far more of a threat to them than the NRA will ever be.

Those are valid points but what I feel is if our rights are demolished stateside the effect is almost the same as federally. I feel that a victory on the state level is imparitive to winning the war and will stem the advance to other states. Its a 2 front war that has our resources divided and we cant let go of either. For example, we defeated UBCs federally (with much credit to the NRA) only to succumb to UBCs stateside.... Whats the difference?

We have to stop the spread of stateside defeats.

etrain16 · May 5, 2015

Koda said:
Those are valid points but what I feel is if our rights are demolished stateside the effect is almost the same as federally. I feel that a victory on the state level is imparitive to winning the war and will stem the advance to other states. Its a 2 front war that has our resources divided and we cant let go of either. For example, we defeated UBCs federally (with much credit to the NRA) only to succumb to UBCs stateside.... Whats the difference?

We have to stop the spread of stateside defeats.

I agree, but we're fighting the resources of a psycho multi-billionaire with more resources than the NRA combined. How can they expect to sustain such a prolonged attack on a state by state basis? I say again that their resources, while substantial, pale in comparison to Bloomberg's. They have to fight where they know there is a reasonable chance to win. Otherwise they could go down expending their limited resources in a state to state battle. And you can bet that Bloomberg would love to wear them down in such a fashion. Again, people with far more political experience than you or I are making those calls - I don't know that I'm qualified to second-guess them.

Koda · May 5, 2015

etrain16 said:
I agree, but we're fighting the resources of a psycho multi-billionaire with more resources than the NRA combined. How can they expect to sustain such a prolonged attack on a state by state basis? I say again that their resources, while substantial, pale in comparison to Bloomberg's. They have to fight where they know there is a reasonable chance to win. Otherwise they could go down expending their limited resources in a state to state battle. And you can bet that Bloomberg would love to wear them down in such a fashion. Again, people with far more political experience than you or I are making those calls - I don't know that I'm qualified to second-guess them.

I agree and understand what your saying. I dont have answers.

But i wont give up or move away and ill do what i can. I dont have much and give when I can to OFF. Been wanting to buy my first AR15 but will give those funds to OFF and any NWFA ideas to combat anti gun legislation so others can keep theirs.

Now that Bloomberg bought Oregon the next step is registering grandfatherd "assault" rifles (like Connecticut) and banning high cap mags (like NY)

etrain16 · May 5, 2015

Koda said:
I agree and understand what your saying. I dont have answers.

But i wont give up or move away and ill do what i can. I dont have much and give when I can to OFF. Been wanting to buy my first AR15 but will give those funds to OFF and any NWFA ideas to combat anti gun legislation so others can keep theirs.

Now that Bloomberg bought Oregon the next step is registering grandfatherd "assault" rifles (like Connecticut) and banning high cap mags (like NY)

You and me both - I'm not leaving.

WasrNwarpaint · May 5, 2015

Attacking my 2nd amend rights on a State or National level I expect more than a postcard telling me to fight my own battles, I donated cash under the pretence I was helping the good fight to defend the 2nd, thats what the ads for financial support said.

If your happy with their contribution to Oregon good for you & I'D LIKE TO DO BUSINESS WITH YOU...Im not satisfied, & my opinion & dissatisfaction with that organization doesnt make me a traitor to the second, or siding with bloomberg & everytown like so many here have been accused of by atleast one mouth piece here that cant handle any opinion different than his....a small little man

peeeeeing on members that want to leave the state....seriously....maybe it has nothing to do with loosing or stricter gun laws.....maybe some of us no longer want to live in a state with a majority of anti gunners & pot heads or a state run by one zip code....

your entitled to your opinions but a man that constantly publicly peeees on another's opinion is a small minded man....

we tried but the DEMOCRATS were bought off by everytown

later days people.....CarryOn

BoonDocks36 · May 5, 2015

@ Norm0931,

Another addition to my Ignore IgnorAnce collection

Buh Bye,

philipism for the day: "Its easier to read the threads, without Ignorance being read"....

We. Are. All. Gun Owners. Petty bickering serves the Enemy. I won't listen to the Enemy, nor Petty Bickering.

Norm0931 · May 6, 2015

Wow, how can I go on with Boondocks ignoring me over challenging the NRA. If you want to keep wasting your money on the NRA be my guest. They'll keep asking you for it. Honestly, the NRA has people conditioned like this is bubbleguming Soviet Russia and you are speaking out against Comrade Overlord Stalin.

GunRightsCoalition · May 11, 2015

Koda said:
I agree and understand what your saying. I dont have answers.

But i wont give up or move away and ill do what i can. I dont have much and give when I can to OFF. Been wanting to buy my first AR15 but will give those funds to OFF and any NWFA ideas to combat anti gun legislation so others can keep theirs.

Now that Bloomberg bought Oregon the next step is registering grandfatherd "assault" rifles (like Connecticut) and banning high cap mags (like NY)

I do. The answer is to establish that fundamental rights are just that. Fundamental. They are not and cannot be subject to infringement at the state level. We must first establish that to stop them from nibbling away one state at a time. Before we can even do that though we need those that claim to be on our side to realize that we cannot let this be an issue that the states decide. Too many of our own ranks are perfectly happy with letting the states decide because they are afraid that the feds would be worse. If we can do that then we can fight on one front instead of being divided between many.