JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Pretty sure the first real gun control law passed in this nation was in 1934. That is a LOT more than 3 decades.
Federally, yes.

In the 1860's, a bunch of southern states passed the "black codes" which forbid black people from possessing firearms. Those are the first gun laws that I'm aware of, outside of local restrictions to carrying, such as Tombstone.
 
I'll finish my thought on the subject with these two. The first is the "Ballot Title" from the SOS office. The 2nd is the actual wording on Multnomah Counties ballot.

You be the judge on whether the bill passed because A) Stupid, Lazy people who were actually against 114 didn't read the WHOLE text of the measure only the ballot title or B) Corrupt, slimy progressives running the state approved an unconstitutional measure using a ballot title full of half truths, missing information and blatant lies..with the full knowledge that most people are Stupid, Lazy and won't read the full measure.

Specifically, the one sentence that pushed most fence straddlers over the edge towards voting FOR 114 was what would happen if they voted NO, "seller/transferor must request criminal background check". They thought we currently have a system where a background check is just 'requested'. The progressives know that's a lie, so does LEVO, the SOS office and everyone else..but it was still allowed into the voters pamphlet and ballot.

That's criminal.

measure114_ballot_title.jpg measure114_multnmah_ballot.jpg
 
This is America. You can't expect people to vote in blocs. Even with seemingly the same self interests. It gets complicated for many.



I was rather surprised how many said they already have all the guns they needed so it wasn't going to affect them.
This is a thing, and especially with older people. Because many of them just get sick and tired, fed up with fighting the same old battles over and over again. And this is how the anti gunners persevere. They wear us down over time, like pouring water over a rock to break it down. Just look at the state legislature in Wash., same old assault weapon ban, proposed year after year. Of course the well-dug in political establishment will get it done, some year, and maybe next.
 
I think many new and old gun owners voted for measure 114 or didn't vote. It's because they already have their guns. Many are silent and don't want to get chewed out by pro-gunners. Example, one friend, a new gunowner told me that he voted for it because it will make the streets safer. And it's too easy to buy a gun.

Another example, an old timer gunowner I know voted for it because he doesn't own any guns that holds more than 10 rounds mostly revolvers, 1911s, and hunting rifles. And that he has all the guns he needed and mentioned that there is too many guns on the streets and crime is out of control. Even in this forum, there is some are silent about their anti gun position but they continue to own guns. It's just like being a silent Trump voter, you don't want to get criticized for voting for him.

Both friends were reluctant to tell me how they voted. But they give their opinions without me criticizing them.

Gunowners are not united and many of them agreeing with the anti gunners that wants stricter gun laws. I think that's why we are losing this battle nationwide.
bubblegum your friends, they can go choke on bubblegum.
 
Federally, yes.

In the 1860's, a bunch of southern states passed the "black codes" which forbid black people from possessing firearms. Those are the first gun laws that I'm aware of, outside of local restrictions to carrying, such as Tombstone.
With all of the testimony on history in the recent 114 hearing (though I realize that had mostly to do with what types of firearms existed and who had them at the time Oregon became a state), I wonder if this historical point could be used to argue against Measure 114
 
I think that's part of it along with the young ones turning of age to vote are taught / brainwashed from school and media that guns and the 2A are bad and evil,
also many parents are not teaching and exposing their kids to firearms or teaching right from wrong but instead teaching how the 2A is a horrible thing .
Another one is it does not matter how they feel about firearms but more important that they teach / raise their kids / students that voting for a Republican
must be avoided at all cost regardless of the outcome. In my opinion the system / schools / social media and a large portion of families have took the hook line and sinker. Just look at today's youth and the majority of 30 and younger crowd . I in my opinion feel as the older generations die off this will be a much different Country.
Like many of you on this site I enlisted and served our Country like so many others and so many paid the price for our freedom just to have our hard fought
freedoms thrown away by the brainwashing being taught by the system we pay taxes for. I bet the generations before us like grandparents / parents would be shaking their fists at this nonsense being jammed up our a$$
Sorry about my rant
end rant GIF
I agree with your post except perhaps the ancestors part. Did your parents fight GCA '68?? AWB '94?? I doubt mine even knew it passed, and if they did, didn't care. Of my two grandparents that were alive in my lifetime, my grandmother probably thought NFA '34 was a good idea and my grandfather didn't care because he did what he wanted and to hell with the rest of the world, especially the "law". And what about our descendants?? No kids of my own, but nieces and nephews, none of whom have known a world without WA 594 and OR 941. If any of them get involved with firearms (I'm trying, but not getting very far) they won't have known anything else. A few more infringements in their lifetime won't seem any different than NFA '34 to our grandparents or GCA '68 to our folks.
 
Are you mad cause I called you "old"? I was wondering when you'd get around to coming back.
I embrace being "Old(er)", dammit! It's the aches and pains, some that are most likely because of the way I treated my body the last 52 years that might be the reason for seeming "Crochety" I embrace the use of my old man cripple card that hangs by the mirror too!
 
I embrace being "Old(er)", dammit! It's the aches and pains, some that are most likely because of the way I treated my body the last 52 years that might be the reason for seeming "Crochety" I embrace the use of my old man cripple card that hangs by the mirror too!
 
Federally, yes.

In the 1860's, a bunch of southern states passed the "black codes" which forbid black people from possessing firearms. Those are the first gun laws that I'm aware of, outside of local restrictions to carrying, such as Tombstone.
Right. But they were outliers and not very well known. Lots of towns and counties had laws, too. But, for the most part NFA was the first REAL gun control law passed in the US. And it is still alive and well.
 
I think if people aren't smart enough to see that three decades of gun control hasn't worked with 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide And gun crime getting dramatically worse if you think a few more laws is gonna fix it you're just a dumb person, There's really nothing wrong with that there's a lot of you just try and do better
Sadly its normally "compromise". Every new gun law that comes along is "common sense" and such. So many will go along thinking that if they just compromise what they own is going to be fine. Sooner or later they run out of compromises and of course then its too late.
 
It really does not surprise me that it passed. There were a few no on 114 signs here and there….. but very little if any tv ads or radio ads.
The same thing happened with running dogs on bear and cougars. A little bit of cost up front would have saved millions in legal fees later.
 
It's swimming upstream against most of the media's relentless brainwashing. Eventually the "media" will win.

This go round, I asked my friends and family to vote no and explained why. They said that they would. I don't ask for much but when I do it's important to me.
 
It really does not surprise me that it passed. There were a few no on 114 signs here and there….. but very little if any tv ads or radio ads.
The same thing happened with running dogs on bear and cougars. A little bit of cost up front would have saved millions in legal fees later.
Who was supposed to pick up that cost?

Just so you know, none of the TV networks would allow anti-114 ads because they were about guns. There were multiple radio ads paid for by contributions to OFF. Some people near Tillamook paid for their own radio ads. OFF volunteers distributed over 2,000 signs. 2Avoters.org and Powder River Sportsman's also raised thousands of dollars and bought signs. AFIK, we had about $50k in contributions against almost $3 million spent by the people that supported 114.

If you know of other methods, and have the funds to support them, why didn't you put them in motion?
 
Of the young gun owners I know (I'm 24 so 18-26 roughly) everyone voted against it even those who already had their guns in their view. Even the ones I dont talk to much. That said, I think people who had a "gun guy" explain it to them all voted against it. Even my parents admitted it May have sounded good or ok, but because I explained the bs they ended up voting no and buying a new gun. Some guy I work with (60+ liberal corvallis oregon) thought he could sell his luger on eBay no check no nothing. People like him think there are no laws and obviously false. That's the issue too getting people to know the facts
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top