- Messages
- 19,696
- Reactions
- 54,974
It's the same up here and nothing short of a Red & Blue revolution will change it. Those liberal progressives have a death grip on the West coast...
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I wrote the following to my Rep using Kevin's contact form:
-------------
I'd like to point out some specific flaws to SB 719 A.
The language refers to firearms, and to "Any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury". I suppose this includes such things as samurai swords, but excludes items such as hammers, pieces of rebar, and kitchen knives, since the latter were not specifically designed to cause death.
Does this make any sense?
If a person is dangerous enough to confiscate guns and swords from, is he somehow rendered incapable of killing the petitioner with a hammer, a kitchen knife, a rock or his bare hands? Would not having his weapons confiscated, actually enrage him so much that he carries out the act with another tool anyway? Isn't this bill counterproductive, causing more death than it prevents?
Many people consider a firearm confiscation to be an act of war. What happens to the hapless law enforcement officer who tries to confiscate the firearms of such a person, perhaps someone considering suicide anyway, so not in fear of losing his life? There are very many who, rather than submitting to such tyranny, would decide to die that day and take others with him.
If a person is so potentially dangerous, aren't there laws already on the books to confine such people? Why then have a law that so absurdly concentrates on his possessions?
This bill is more indicative of an obsession to punish and harass gun owners, than a desire to preserve life. More people will be killed than are saved by it.
---------------
Hope it helps. I don't mind if others want to make the same points or just copy the whole thing verbatim, in contacting their reps.
-------------
I'd like to point out some specific flaws to SB 719 A.
The language refers to firearms, and to "Any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury". I suppose this includes such things as samurai swords, but excludes items such as hammers, pieces of rebar, and kitchen knives, since the latter were not specifically designed to cause death.
Does this make any sense?
If a person is dangerous enough to confiscate guns and swords from, is he somehow rendered incapable of killing the petitioner with a hammer, a kitchen knife, a rock or his bare hands? Would not having his weapons confiscated, actually enrage him so much that he carries out the act with another tool anyway? Isn't this bill counterproductive, causing more death than it prevents?
Many people consider a firearm confiscation to be an act of war. What happens to the hapless law enforcement officer who tries to confiscate the firearms of such a person, perhaps someone considering suicide anyway, so not in fear of losing his life? There are very many who, rather than submitting to such tyranny, would decide to die that day and take others with him.
If a person is so potentially dangerous, aren't there laws already on the books to confine such people? Why then have a law that so absurdly concentrates on his possessions?
This bill is more indicative of an obsession to punish and harass gun owners, than a desire to preserve life. More people will be killed than are saved by it.
---------------
Hope it helps. I don't mind if others want to make the same points or just copy the whole thing verbatim, in contacting their reps.
Not trying to be an bubblegum Paul, but do you really think your representative reads that? Even considers it, IF they do read it? I'm figuring on the floor those against this bill come right out and say these things out loud. That doesn't seem to do one damned thing. "They" vote in unison with not a care the way the thing is written. All they see is that "It's a start"!
Here's an anarchist arguing for writing the legislature.
The flaw in your thinking is that it's a one-zero thing, either people are fanatics for or against gun control. In fact, there is a substantial "mushy middle" in the legislature, just as in their constituents.
Most legislators don't want to cause harm, generally. I won't get Ginny Burdick with my arguments, but I might get a few in the middle. What legislators really want is 1) not to piss off gun owners too much, since this is one of the big two issues that every legislator gets grilled about (the other being abortion); and 2) an excuse for voting against such a bill that won't cause heartburn later, in an election. If they can say "It would cause more deaths than it prevents, and is unfriendly to law enforcement," well, that's quite an excuse!
The flaw in your thinking is that it's a one-zero thing, either people are fanatics for or against gun control. In fact, there is a substantial "mushy middle" in the legislature, just as in their constituents.
Most legislators don't want to cause harm, generally. I won't get Ginny Burdick with my arguments, but I might get a few in the middle. What legislators really want is 1) not to piss off gun owners too much, since this is one of the big two issues that every legislator gets grilled about (the other being abortion); and 2) an excuse for voting against such a bill that won't cause heartburn later, in an election. If they can say "It would cause more deaths than it prevents, and is unfriendly to law enforcement," well, that's quite an excuse!
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 5,152
- Reactions
- 11,450
I used a variation of the OFF link yesterday. No response. Yet.
- Messages
- 5,064
- Reactions
- 8,957
Looks more like a blackmail or divorce leverage bill to me. You don't do what I want, I'll turn you in for being dangerous to yourself and you'll lose all your 2A rights, have your firearms confiscated, and can't give them back until I say so or you spend a crap load of money on lawyers. I wonder if this is even constitutional. Not that Burdick, Courtney, Prozonski, and their ilk care.
Here's an anarchist arguing for writing the legislature.
The flaw in your thinking is that it's a one-zero thing, either people are fanatics for or against gun control. In fact, there is a substantial "mushy middle" in the legislature, just as in their constituents.
Most legislators don't want to cause harm, generally. I won't get Ginny Burdick with my arguments, but I might get a few in the middle. What legislators really want is 1) not to piss off gun owners too much, since this is one of the big two issues that every legislator gets grilled about (the other being abortion); and 2) an excuse for not voting for such a bill that won't cause heartburn later, in an election. If they can say "It would cause more deaths than it prevents, and is unfriendly to law enforcement," well, that's quite an excuse!
I like your writing. Thanks for the response, it does make sense.
- Messages
- 883
- Reactions
- 320
Representative Bill Post wrote back to me thus;
"This is a horrible bill and I'm very disappointed in Sen. Boquist for introducing and championing it, though I understand the horror of his son committing suicide.
This is not the way to fix that.
I want to remind you, in case you aren't familiar with me, I am the most active Second Amendment Rights advocate in the Capitol! As a former Conservative Talk
Show Host who has led many gun rallies on the Capitol Steps, be assured I am fighting for OUR rights!
I explained that the letter I wrote went out to all involved, and I thanked him.
As I said elsewhere here, I got s letter from Deborah Boone saying she got an A- from the NRA, only the minus because she doesn't agree that we have the right to an AR15. I wrote back to her that she clearly does not understand the reason behind the second amendment and should not be t the helm of government. I'm sick to death of housewives running our country! I know many women, like my wife, are not blindly following Oprah TV, but a very large percentage of women seem subject to leftists warm fuzzy ideologies, they believe in assigning responsibility to things instead of people, and seldom will address the responsibility of the doers of wickedness. In so doing they become more evil than the actual doers, one crack head might murder his dealer, but someone like Deborah Boone murders all the rights within a whole state!
Having said all that I don't know if she voted for this abomination or not. If she thinks the second amendment is about hunting or target shooting she should not be involved in government!
"This is a horrible bill and I'm very disappointed in Sen. Boquist for introducing and championing it, though I understand the horror of his son committing suicide.
This is not the way to fix that.
I want to remind you, in case you aren't familiar with me, I am the most active Second Amendment Rights advocate in the Capitol! As a former Conservative Talk
Show Host who has led many gun rallies on the Capitol Steps, be assured I am fighting for OUR rights!
I explained that the letter I wrote went out to all involved, and I thanked him.
As I said elsewhere here, I got s letter from Deborah Boone saying she got an A- from the NRA, only the minus because she doesn't agree that we have the right to an AR15. I wrote back to her that she clearly does not understand the reason behind the second amendment and should not be t the helm of government. I'm sick to death of housewives running our country! I know many women, like my wife, are not blindly following Oprah TV, but a very large percentage of women seem subject to leftists warm fuzzy ideologies, they believe in assigning responsibility to things instead of people, and seldom will address the responsibility of the doers of wickedness. In so doing they become more evil than the actual doers, one crack head might murder his dealer, but someone like Deborah Boone murders all the rights within a whole state!
Having said all that I don't know if she voted for this abomination or not. If she thinks the second amendment is about hunting or target shooting she should not be involved in government!
- Messages
- 160
- Reactions
- 248
I'm torn on this. While I understand your frustration, at least this politician is supporting firearms rights at all. I'm grateful for all the help we can get, especially from the Democratic party! In the grand scheme of things, it's less than idea, yes.
That said, a Democrat who supports gun rights Lite is a whole lot better than the likes of Ginny Burdick or Floyd Prozanski. Especially in the current climate.
- Messages
- 2,142
- Reactions
- 4,143
If this is true, I find it a very telling statement on the current state of affairs with the NRA leadership. Reminds me of the endorsement Harry Reid got a few years ago, only to turn his back on us at the first opportunity...
C'mon NRA....pull your collective heads out of your @%&&#. And while you're at it, more tangible effort at the state level would be appreciated as well.
Last Edited:
Its doesnt work that way, its all or nothing. The 2A isnt about hunting rifles or "sporting rifles" its about "arms".... Military weapons.
It may sound good on paper for a politician to support some 'gun' rights as opposed to none, but what that really means is your right is negotiable to the legislative process.
A "right".... Is not negotiable, it is inalienable. A politician that does not support your right to own a military arm is anti-gun.
- Messages
- 160
- Reactions
- 248
And a little more tangible effort at the state level would be appreciated as well.
That's what OFF is for. NRA has little-to-no presence in Oregon.
Which is fine by me. The NRA should be working to promote the Second Amendment in America, yet they've involved their selves in so many political issues, which firearms owners don't necessarily support. That behavior only further polarizes the NRA, and causes people to dig their heels in against us.
For example: As a public figure, Ted Nugent says rasict, sexist things I find completely unconscionable. That behavior only reinforces stereotypes and makes firearms advocates look worse in the public eye.
I don't want to support that with my money. I'll keep donating to the Oregon Firearms Federation.
- Messages
- 160
- Reactions
- 248
I understand what you're saying.
The problem is that Democrats aren't going to stop being the majority in Oregon anytime soon. Half of their party is about full-on gun control. So when I see Democratic politicians who are willing to speak up for 2A rights at all, I think that's a hell of a lot better. Do I agree? No.
But I think it's a great starting point. Maybe in the future they'll walk a little further in our direction.
I'd rather have a Senate split between pro-gun & gun-tolerant, than pro-gun & no-gun.
The danger with all-or-nothing is when you get nothing.
- Messages
- 2,142
- Reactions
- 4,143
Not to seem unduly sarcastic but...and how's that been working out for us ?
If you are on a sinking boat..everybody needs to bail, and on both sides.
Maybe its a starting point in the reversal of the democratic politics? I doubt it... thats really just an endless game of political tug-of-war between the left and the right... Eventually it will go back to the other side.
Dont forget the left has nothing to lose, literally. Allowing a series of compromises as better than nothing, is really allowing a series of taking away in smaller chunks.
I hear what your saying but dont think we have anything left to compromise...
- Messages
- 883
- Reactions
- 320
I was born in Oregon long ago, and the situation is so bad right now that we are looking at property in Idaho. Our plan is to take our guns at least there before the new flock of female legislators can steal them from us, plus we don't want to retire in a state where we have only negotiable privileges and no rights.
The only good thing I can say about Oregon now is that there is no sales tax, compared to our God given rights the freedom from a sales tax is a small price to pay.
The only good thing I can say about Oregon now is that there is no sales tax, compared to our God given rights the freedom from a sales tax is a small price to pay.
- Messages
- 6,985
- Reactions
- 21,487
And yet again, we throw all faith in to a system on our side that fails time and time again.
I read this and went well no duh, they have the majority votes and will do what they want.
Until we wake up and realize lobbies wont save us and we need to do it our selves we will be doing this each year.
Along with our side investing in antacid and alcohol. No reason to be upset its gonna happen until we unite as one with a
cause for all and conservatives suck at organizing and unity its almost like watching a B movie its pretty sad. And well
our lobbys have about as much influence as throwing sand to stop a truck.
But lets write the people who don't care what we say or think , maybe it helps some sleep but it wont accomplish much
it never does and really hasn't in a decade or more.
I read this and went well no duh, they have the majority votes and will do what they want.
Until we wake up and realize lobbies wont save us and we need to do it our selves we will be doing this each year.
Along with our side investing in antacid and alcohol. No reason to be upset its gonna happen until we unite as one with a
cause for all and conservatives suck at organizing and unity its almost like watching a B movie its pretty sad. And well
our lobbys have about as much influence as throwing sand to stop a truck.
But lets write the people who don't care what we say or think , maybe it helps some sleep but it wont accomplish much
it never does and really hasn't in a decade or more.
- Messages
- 883
- Reactions
- 320
"But lets write the people who don't care what we say or think , maybe it helps some sleep but it wont accomplish much
it never does and really hasn't in a decade or more."
If we don't say something they assume no one cares. The real problem is that the education system is populated with liberals, the kids come out of 12 or16 years of school never hearing or reading about the second amendment and why it's there. Most of us here don't go to PTA meetings or contact administrators.
It really doesn't matter that we understand the Founder's ideas that libs do not, as long as they control the minds of the young. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm sure that writing letters explaining our ideas is an important part of how we educate the people who vote on our laws.
I would be in support of a new law that makes sure no one can "serve" in high office in either national or state governments without understanding the Constitution with emphasis on the BOR's. How can our "Leaders" lead us if they don't understand the founders unwillingness to hand power over to an elite small group, or even that the Bill of Rights was designed to limit GOVERNMENT and not the people rights. When people try to state that the second amendment is only so the government can have National Guard they are saying just that, that a segment of the BOR's is to protect government.
Only a liberal would twist his or her head so far into fantasy as to think the BOR's is to protect the government.
it never does and really hasn't in a decade or more.
" If we don't say something they assume no one cares. The real problem is that the education system is populated with liberals, the kids come out of 12 or16 years of school never hearing or reading about the second amendment and why it's there. Most of us here don't go to PTA meetings or contact administrators.
It really doesn't matter that we understand the Founder's ideas that libs do not, as long as they control the minds of the young. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm sure that writing letters explaining our ideas is an important part of how we educate the people who vote on our laws.
I would be in support of a new law that makes sure no one can "serve" in high office in either national or state governments without understanding the Constitution with emphasis on the BOR's. How can our "Leaders" lead us if they don't understand the founders unwillingness to hand power over to an elite small group, or even that the Bill of Rights was designed to limit GOVERNMENT and not the people rights. When people try to state that the second amendment is only so the government can have National Guard they are saying just that, that a segment of the BOR's is to protect government.
Only a liberal would twist his or her head so far into fantasy as to think the BOR's is to protect the government.
Similar threads
- Locked
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Microtech Ultratech S/E Tactical Partial Serrated- Started by JBSTRD
- Replies: 1
-
-
Reloading Dies, 300 H&H,300 Win Mag,220 swift,338 Winchester,30.06- Started by NJACamaro
- Replies: 0