Some on the left worry about 114 preventing them from purchasing

[Savage Jav]

Oregon's LGBTQ community worries that a new law will keep them from obtaining guns

Oregon's Measure 114 gives county sheriffs and police chiefs discretion to determine who qualifies to purchase a firearm. Opponents say the criteria to make those decisions is ambiguous.

www.npr.org

Seems that some understand the dangers of permits.

Read More

 

[Member 34319]

The shear quantity and quality of irony in that article is next level.

 

[Savage Jav]

The shear quantity and quality of irony in that article is next level.

I would of laughed so hard if we all werent in this situation

 

[TTSX]

Right. So what I'm reading is that it's ok to restrict straight white male gun ownership but as soon as a "marginalized" class is affected, it's a bad law.

You know what, I hope they DO purposefully restrict the "community" from firearms access with extreme prejudice. At least then they'd have something meaningful to protest.

 

[Kruel J]

Ok......but how did they vote?

 

[3MTA3]

Civil rights, including the right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your fellow citizens, belong to everyone regardless of their politics. Hopefully a few will wake up a bit.

 

[Savage Jav]

Right. So what I'm reading is that it's ok to restrict straight white male gun ownership but as soon as a "marginalized" class is affected, it's a bad law.

You know what, I hope they DO purposefully restrict the "community" from firearms access with extreme prejudice. At least then they'd have something meaningful to protest.

I read a similar thing. The use of logic of it "restricting me but you gotta restrict that group of people"

 

[3MTA3]

Right. So what I'm reading is that it's ok to restrict straight white male gun ownership but as soon as a "marginalized" class is affected, it's a bad law.

You know what, I hope they DO purposefully restrict the "community" from firearms access with extreme prejudice. At least then they'd have something meaningful to protest.

duh, OPB, who bravely won't take comments from readers

 

[3MTA3]

I read a similar thing. The use of logic of it "restricting me but you gotta restrict that group of people"

Almost like elite authoritarianism? Sorta like everything on the far end of a political spectrum?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Ok......but how did they vote?

The sample size is low because it is just based on my personal experience, but the issue is that "we" are viewing The Left as one monolithic voting block. From conversations I have had out in the world the group this article is talking about, maybe call them "The Far Left" has been against 114 from the beginning and the reasons given match what the article covers. And again, from my conversations, the 'left' that voted yes on 114 tend to be the ones that view themselves as Centrists or Progressive-But-Realistic, meaning urban upper middle class NIMBY types like the ones that voted for changing building codes to mandate high density developments but then got all upset when they discovered that it would happen in their neighborhood

And despite what some might claim, it's not cognitive dissidence voting for a candidate that has a position opposite your views on one subject or another, it's prioritizing and in many cases picking the lesser of two evils.

 

[Kruel J]

The sample size is low because it is just based on my personal experience, but the issue is that "we" are viewing The Left as one monolithic voting block. From conversations I have had out in the world the group this article is talking about, maybe call them "The Far Left" has been against 114 from the beginning and the reasons given match what the article covers. And again, from my conversations, the 'left' that voted yes on 114 tend to be the ones that views themselves as Centrists or Progressive-But-Realistic, meaning urban upper middle class NIMBY types like the ones that voted for changing building codes to mandate high density developments but then got all upset when they discovered that it would happen in their neighborhood

And despite what some might claim, it's not cognitive dissidence voting for a candidate that has a position opposite your views on one subject or another, it's prioritizing and in many cases picking the lesser of two evils.

Candidates didn't have anything to do with 114. People either voted for or against 114. Left, right, middle, whatever. You either believe in the constitution at its purest or you don't.

 

[Member 24198]

The sample size is low because it is just based on my personal experience, but the issue is that "we" are viewing The Left as one monolithic voting block. From conversations I have had out in the world the group this article is talking about, maybe call them "The Far Left" has been against 114 from the beginning and the reasons given match what the article covers. And again, from my conversations, the 'left' that voted yes on 114 tend to be the ones that view themselves as Centrists or Progressive-But-Realistic, meaning urban upper middle class NIMBY types like the ones that voted for changing building codes to mandate high density developments but then got all upset when they discovered that it would happen in their neighborhood

And despite what some might claim, it's not cognitive dissidence voting for a candidate that has a position opposite your views on one subject or another, it's prioritizing and in many cases picking the lesser of two evils.

True, but most, but not necessarily all candidates that will check the boxes for the majority of the platform ideals, will more than likely be against private gun ownership.

This obviously doesn't apply for ballot issues.

 

[TTSX]

Ok......but how did they vote?

Or did they vote at all?

 

[Member 24198]

ACLU should have been all over this ballot measure.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Candidates didn't have anything to do with 114. People either voted for or against 114. Left, right, middle, whatever. You either believe in the constitution at its purest or you don't.

Meh. There are politicians that support a wide range of gun laws, all the way from NO gun laws wayyyy over to NO GUNS should be the law. And all of those politicians have a range of views on non 2a issues as well. It would be silly to point out that just about everyone on here views the 2a issues to be the most important issue, but not every on out in the world holds that same position.

And no, I will not list, debate or get into whether or not those views are more or less important, more or less constitutional or anything like that, because . . .


#

2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited

We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, hurting our cause far more than it could ever help it. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division.

Going tell you right now that sometimes it does feel like I am one of the very few that care about the rules, specifically the part about " focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment" but I also know that a bunch of you think I probably have a Communist flag on my garage wall

 

[Longwalkhome]

Elections have consequences.

 

[3MTA3]

Meh. There are politicians that support a wide range of gun laws, all the way from NO gun laws wayyyy over to NO GUNS should be the law. And all of those politicians have a range of views on non 2a issues as well. It would be silly to point out that just about everyone on here views the 2a issues to be the most important issue, but not every on out in the world holds that same position.

And no, I will not list, debate or get into whether or not those views are more or less important, more or less constitutional or anything like that, because . . .
View attachment 1330630

#

2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited

We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, hurting our cause far more than it could ever help it. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division.

Going tell you right now that sometimes it does feel like I am one of the very few that care about the rules, specifically the part about " focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment" but I also know that a bunch of you think I probably have a Communist flag on my garage wall

Wait... did you just throw the penalty flag at yourself?

 

[Koda]

ACLU should have been all over this ballot measure.

And still should be...

IIRC wasnt this issue something OFF publicly stated and warned about repeatedly? But then suddenly equality wasnt a factor from LEVO or the media reporting in favor....

 

[Koda]

Candidates matter.... Is a governor required to sign a law into effect?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Wait... did you just throw the penalty flag at yourself?

Nah, not this time. But other times I have written and promptly deleted before posting a couple posts that would do the memory of Lt Fox proud