Universal background checks in Oregon - how long till a bill is proposed?

[GOG]

How about just enforcing the laws currently on the books, even though some/many infringe on our rights. How about criminal control instead of gun control?

Guns are inanimate objects. Behavior is the problem.

And "shall not be infringed" needs no clarification or defense.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about "control".

 

[DireWolf]

You know that owner registration will have absolutley no affect whatsoever on violence yet you insist on pushing the concept to make yourself look good. You are not looking for a solution at all. You're looking to find a way to say "look, I did something". "I'm a hero because I saved the lives of all the children".

You are putting words in my mouth because you don't understand the words I am using. You villify what you do not understand, and that is not the result of wisdom.

If it was so simple, you wouldn't need an analogy, or a metaphor, or any other literary device. The few tap dancing around my question with BS are doing so because they have no idea how to answer the question honestly, because an honest answer may result in going off script.

DB - I appreciate the post, and I agree about the constitutionality question. I am not at all advocating registration. I am trying to think about a way to repackage what we already do into something that might be effective in preventing and further "cuts". I see a runaway train, rolling down the track. Try to hop on it, and throw a switch at a siding, or stand next to the tracks, arms folded insisting that refusal to take action will prevent a derailment. I look at both sides and see a shameful paucity of creative ideas - only dogmas behind clenched teeth, entrenched in ruts. The problem with that type of negotiation solely rests on the paradigm that has the most momentum come vote time.

P.S. Chariot13 - let me know if you need help with the bigger words

 

[DireWolf]

How about none of the above? "...shall not be infringed."

Remember, it's not about guns although that's how all this nonsense is being sold, it's about control.

How about just enforcing the laws currently on the books, even though some/many infringe on our rights. How about criminal control instead of gun control?

Guns are inanimate objects. Behavior is the problem.

And "shall not be infringed" needs no clarification or defense.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about "control".

I'll take bumper sticker rhetoric for $1000, Alex.

 

[duane black]

I appreciate the post, and I agree about the constitutionality question. I am not at all advocating registration. I am trying to think about a way to repackage what we already do into something that might be effective in preventing and further "cuts". I see a runaway train, rolling down the track. Try to hop on it, and throw a switch at a siding, or stand next to the tracks, arms folded insisting that refusal to take action will prevent a derailment. I look at both sides and see a shameful paucity of creative ideas - only dogmas behind clenched teeth, entrenched in ruts. The problem with that type of negotiation solely rests on the paradigm that has the most momentum come vote time.

Understood and agreed. The train is coming, no doubt about it. I'm writing my state and congressional reps it seems almost daily about some new proposal. I think my local state rep is going to put me on a " list ".



You had asked a question earlier about how this would infringe on your/our second amendment rights. The fact of the matter is, the supreme court would more than likely agree with you at this point in time. Regardless of what I or anybody else thinks. I of course can't speak for the old fogies but it seems to me this is exactly what they are referring to as being a reasonable restriction. Doesn't matter that I don't like it.

What we really need to look at is not further restricting guns in this country, we need to figure out how to solve violence, poverty, and education failings in our inner cities. Why is it just a generation or two ago we had target shooting in public schools, guns on campus, our fathers and grand fathers were not killing each other ? These stats often repeated are overwhelmingly coming from inner cities. Oakland, Chicago, etc. Not Washougal WA or Beaverton OR.

I have heard of stories on forums of folks as children riding down to the nearest hardware store to buy ammo with a slung 22 rifle. They were not committing homicides. This is in California BTW.

What has changed ?

It's not that we are now just becoming violent, we have always been violent. I don't have the solutions. I understand you see this coming no matter what and are trying to think of a way to perform some " damage control ".

With my life experiences I just can't compromise with these folks. Every year they came back for more, and more, and more. Now they want registred guns. Could you imagine ? Private damn property, people that compromised 20 some odd years ago.

 

[DireWolf]

Understood and agreed. The train is coming, no doubt about it. I'm writing my state and congressional reps it seems almost daily about some new proposal. I think my local state rep is going to put me on a " list ".



You had asked a question earlier about how this would infringe on your/our second amendment rights. The fact of the matter is, the supreme court would more than likely agree with you at this point in time. Regardless of what I or anybody else thinks. I of course can't speak for the old fogies but it seems to me this is exactly what they are referring to as being a reasonable restriction. Doesn't matter that I don't like it.

What we really need to look at is not further restricting guns in this country, we need to figure out how to solve violence, poverty, and education failings in our inner cities. Why is it just a generation or two ago we had target shooting in public schools, guns on campus, our fathers and grand fathers were not killing each other ? These stats often repeated are overwhelmingly coming from inner cities. Oakland, Chicago, etc. Not Washougal WA or Beaverton OR.

I have heard of stories on forums of folks as children riding down to the nearest hardware store to buy ammo with a slung 22 rifle. They were not committing homicides. This is in California BTW.

What has changed ?

It's not that we are now just becoming violent, we have always been violent. I don't have the solutions. I understand you see this coming no matter what and are trying to think of a way to perform some " damage control ".

With my life experiences I just can't compromise with these folks. Every year they came back for more, and more, and more. Now they want registred guns. Could you imagine ? Private damn property, people that compromised 20 some odd years ago.

I don't really disagree with what you are saying, and appreciate you meeting me halfway.

I was questioning the idea that we already have to do a background scheck for a new purchase. That check is associated with a specific firearm. Remove that association, and shift the background check *to* the person. Once done, the person gets a card. They can then go into another store, show the card, and get a new firearm *without* a second background check. It removes the background check from the firearm, and I see that as maybe a further step *away* from registrations, if you catch my drift. That also provides a document that private citizens can request of each other for FTF sales - allowing the trumpeting of a proactive way that private citizens can go about paperless sales while providing a way to show the public that it is possible to engage in private sales while keeping FTF arms out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminal.

I see it as an approach that can be positively spun, is proactive, provides a way for owners to take some responsibility of the process, and illustrates that there is an easy way to continue to conduct private sales without further interference.

I've said my part on this. Again, I appreciate the discussion even if we maybe don't see eye to eye.

 

[GOG]

I'll take bumper sticker rhetoric for $1000, Alex.

Your arrogance blinds you to simple truth, so you dismiss it. This is not quantum physics, it's simple. This is another encroachment on our God given/natural rights.

I took an oath forty-five years ago to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still honor that oath.

 

[DireWolf]

Your arrogance blinds you to simple truth, so you dismiss it. This is not quantum physics, it's simple. This is another encroachment on our God given/natural rights.

I took an oath forty-five years ago to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still honor that oath.

If it was so simple, someone could simply answer a simple question.

And God did not write the constitution, men did. Even Article 3, so I hope you are prepared to defend all laws deemed Constitutional by the Judiciary. Should be simple.

 

[madmax]

After read this thread, it's clear we are bubblegumed and there plan is working.

8k use use guns in a violent way. 100 plus million use then for nothing every year. Guns are the only thing we treat like this. Why can't we treat it like drunk driving. Educate people across the board. Enforce the laws. We don't Make you get a BGC to buy. We didn't put a ow and go in every rig. We didn't make you special insurance. We didn't limit how much you could buy or keep in your home. We didn't pass law to keep booze out of reach of kids. DUIs are way down. Still happen daily. People still drink them selves to death at a much higher rate then guns.

There are much more deadly thing we use and do every day that are not nearly as regulated. We have a right to bare arms.

Why are so many willing to roll over and take it in the AS S?


None of these laws will stop crime. Criminal don't fallow laws. Why do high gun control areas have higher crime across the board? Because criminals now they is less risk of death or interference from people.


There is nothing common sense about these laws. Only victims and control.

 

[M67]

It is "The law of compromise" that will take all of our rights.

They know that if you compromise once, you will do it again and again and again.......

That's how the politicians roll.

 

[duane black]

I've said my part on this. Again, I appreciate the discussion even if we maybe don't see eye to eye.

I would like to believe that's the point of this board. You do get dog piled on this board, alot. I respect you for continuing to post here and also appreciate the discussion. Like I said before in another thread. A discussion board is no fun if we all sit around circle jerking to each others posts. It also not real fun to beat on people who express differing view points.

Sometimes being a libertarian is hard business.

:drink:

 

[DireWolf]

Sometimes being a libertarian is hard business.

:drink:

Sometimes being a left libertarian is harder.

 

[GOG]

If it was so simple, someone could simply answer a simple question.

And God did not write the constitution, men did. Even Article 3, so I hope you are prepared to defend all laws deemed Constitutional by the Judiciary. Should be simple.

Did you notice that I said God given/natural rights? I'm dismayed that someone of your brilliance would have such poor reading comprehension.

May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders.

 

[DireWolf]

Did you notice that I said God given/natural rights? I'm dismayed that someone of your brilliance would have such poor reading comprehension.

I understand what you think it means, if that's a consolation.

 

[GOG]

"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
― Samuel Adams

I'll go with Sam on this. I'll keep my beliefs, you keep yours.

 

[fallingblock]

I was questioning the idea that we already have to do a background scheck for a new purchase. That check is associated with a specific firearm. Remove that association, and shift the background check *to* the person. Once done, the person gets a card. They can then go into another store, show the card, and get a new firearm *without* a second background check. It removes the background check from the firearm, and I see that as maybe a further step *away* from registrations, if you catch my drift. That also provides a document that private citizens can request of each other for FTF sales - allowing the trumpeting of a proactive way that private citizens can go about paperless sales while providing a way to show the public that it is possible to engage in private sales while keeping FTF arms out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminal.
.

What exactly is your goal on this forum? You spend three pages spouting BS, all the while knowing what your thought was (or so I assume you did). I apprecicate the fact that you enjoy writing; it's very simular to hearing yourself talk, only without having to listen to any objections to your point of view.

If you have a point, would it not be much easier to just say it, rather than attempting to gain some insight or understanding of your audience?

To my point...

You have some validity to your train of thought. Sadly, I believe there is a large portion of our society that's just plain tired of government and their invovlement in every aspect of our lives. Those folks are pretty much set in stone against just about anything the government is trying. So to come out and say "ya, we could do universal background checks" without further details into why you think this way is a great way to drag out three pages of thread.

I see what you are saying, and it is a win for us over what we have currently on the books.

 

[PiratePast40]

There are some of us that maintain a national security clearance for our jobs. Once the background investigation and other testing is completed, including a mental health screening, there are still recurring checks. It's not a simple BI and then you're done forever. In fact, there is continuous supervision and even mandatory as well as random fitness for duty testing. If a person is out of the field for 30 days, some of the process must be repeated to verify compliance.

The reason I bring this up is to show, that even with the BI, there is nothing to show that a card holder is still in compliance with the requirements at the time of issue. Thus, a BI still has to be performed each time a purchase is attempted. That means that the card itself is worthless except at the time of issue.