Oregon Initiative 43 passes first step; complete ban on all modern guns...

zukiphile said:
You have this in the incorrect order. The NRA has convinced politicians that they can motivate a large number of voters. The NRA did this by motivating large numbers of voters, which was clever.



You who generally have a dcent handle on what they need in order to be re-elected? Existing officeholders.



Did you almost type "common sense regulation..."?



They did that. Do you need a list?



Good thing no one has tried that, right?



It's difficult to take seriously your position on additional restrictions on arms when you don't actually know what that position is.



You don't know whether you can live with those controls, because you don't know what they are, correct?
Click to expand...
As for what additional controls I can live with, I know it isn’t zero. That is for sure.
 
carguychris said:
Perhaps in terms of the general population, but what counts in this particular instance is who shows up at the polls.

The NRA has fooled nobody; no non-governmental actor has inherent power. The NRA's power lies with millions of members and sympathetic non-members who contact their elected representatives and VOTE.

You recognize that this is how our political system works with respect to MOST controversial issues, right?

If a single-issue advocacy organization gets the politicians to vote in its favor, it has done its job; the politicians' personal views are arguably irrelevant.
...

Serious and informed gun enthusiasts understand that firearms are heavily regulated RIGHT NOW, yet many of the laws are not seriously enforced, and that many measures touted as "sensible" seem designed to poke lawful enthusiasts in the eye while doing little to address real-world problems. This ballot measure is one such "sensible" proposal. :mad:

Who do you think is seriously espousing "never, ever the tiniest bit of regulation," individual cranks on online gun forums notwithstanding? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As far as what sensible means, just think sensible to you. At least it is a starting point for a discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are regulations in place, I’ve answered the necessary questions honestly, I’ve submitted to multiple Background checks, my finger prints are on file. I follow all the rules that I’m supposed to follow. I pay the associated fees. I use all my firearms responsibly and safely. I don’t have violent desires, I don’t commit crimes with firearms. I’ve even had the military training.

Tell me how I’m going to be more dangerous with a 30rd magazine than a ten.
 
Supposing there was not one single law regulating gun ownership and use anywhere in the USA. Starting from zero. No siege atmosphere. Would you approve of universal background checks? Every single transaction no matter where it occurred? Including extensive reviews of the buyer’s mental health? And waiting periods long enough to get all the checks and reviews done properly? Registration of every firearm in a federal database? Would you approve of the requirement to have guns locked away when unattended?

In the absence of attacks on assault rifle ownership and the like, is anything I have proposed above not reasonable? Does any of it represent an attempt to take away our guns?
 
rpenmanparker said:
Supposing there was not one single law regulating gun ownership and use anywhere in the USA. Starting from zero. No siege atmosphere. Would you approve of universal background checks? Every single transaction no matter where it occurred? Including extensive reviews of the buyer’s mental health? And waiting periods long enough to get all the checks and reviews done properly? Registration of every firearm in a federal database? Would you approve of the requirement to have guns locked away when unattended?

In the absence of attacks on assault rifle ownership and the like, is anything I have proposed above not reasonable?
Click to expand...

In a word -- no, most of it isn't reasonable.

Very little of this is "reasonable" to people who take the Constitution seriously, and I'm not just referring to the Second Amendment when I say this. Most of what you've enumerated here is based on two assumptions. First, that it is possible to identify people who "shouldn't" have guns before they've actually committed a crime, and second, that it's OK to deprive people of their rights -- dictate what they do in their own homes, track what personal property they own, and investigate them in some very intrusive ways -- when they are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

I think most of us, although by no means all, support background checks for sales involving federally licensed dealers, at least to the extent that they identify people who have been convicted of crimes or have otherwise been subjected to some sort of due process which has determined that they're mentally or emotionally unfit. In the absence of such due process, there is no justification for depriving people of the right to privacy or the right to own what property they choose.
 
Evan, that’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say in the last few responses, thanks for putting it together so well.
 
What civil right are you going to submit to an extensive mental health evaluation in order to exercise?
Click to expand...

This got me to thinking about the Voting Rights Act.

It seems to me that any qualifier or disqualifier for individual rights, especially those in the Constitution, can be applied unequally to various protected classes and as such the burden of proof that such is needed and will be applied in an equal manner lies on those proposing such.
 
Originally posted by rpenmanparker:
Hard core gun advocates are in the minority.
Click to expand...

This statement that you made bothers me.
I don't honestly believe that across our country, gun owners are in any minority.
Maybe when you skirt the western and eastern edges, but not overall.
That's just the concept that we've had shoved in our faces for so long that some have taken to accepting it as the truth.
There were supposed truths shoved in our faces the year before last that despite the relentless nature of it all, our nation wound up looking like a sea of red electorally.
That means to me that the real majority spoke.

I realize that we as gun owners face more serious challenges than ever before in our nation's history, this initiative in Oregon is proof of that.
Though I don't for a second believe that we'd be best to bend to the will and whims of the overly vocal minority.
That is weak as zukiphile pointed out, bordering on pathetic.
It causes me to think of that famous quote about one who would surrender freedoms for the promise of security, will have nor deserve either.

I also firmly believe that the tide is changing, and we'll be living in a very different climate in our not so distant future as a nation.
Only time will bear that out or prove me a fool.
 
Everyone well knows that I have often been in a “sky is falling” kinda mode. I have often posted doom and gloom as far as gun rights go. I believed that we are in the minority.

As this current gun debate rages on, I am changing my opinion on the matter. I don’t think that we are the in the minority any more.
The media has propagandize the issue, among other political issues. The silent majority is waking up and the other side is on full panic mode. It is evident because the media isn’t even trying to hide its bias anymore, they are trying to whip their followers into a frenzy to create the appearance of out numbering gun rights advocates.
The problem is one side of the spectrum voted in greater number than the other.
 
Despite the handful of ridiculously prohibitive states, the majority of states have proven fairly firearm friendly in recent years.
That is in keeping with the majority of voters in those states.

Another thing that REALLY bugs me is when a gun owner, in other words my own Brother... misuses the term assault weapon out of extreme ignorance.
That just proves to me that they've drank the cool-aid and are actually no longer on our side.
 
turkeestalker said:
Originally posted by rpenmanparker:


This statement that you made bothers me.
I don't honestly believe that across our country, gun owners are in any minority.
Maybe when you skirt the western and eastern edges, but not overall.
That's just the concept that we've had shoved in our faces for so long that some have taken to accepting it as the truth.
There were supposed truths shoved in our faces the year before last that despite the relentless nature of it all, our nation wound up looking like a sea of red electorally.
That means to me that the real majority spoke.

I realize that we as gun owners face more serious challenges than ever before in our nation's history, this initiative in Oregon is proof of that.
Though I don't for a second believe that we'd be best to bend to the will and whims of the overly vocal minority.
That is weak as zukiphile pointed out, bordering on pathetic.
It causes me to think of that famous quote about one who would surrender freedoms for the promise of security, will have nor deserve either.

I also firmly believe that the tide is changing, and we'll be living in a very different climate in our not so distant future as a nation.
Only time will bear that out or prove me a fool.
Click to expand...
You changed hard core gun advocates to gun owners. Big difference. If as I posted just above the number of gun owner is 42%, what do you think is the number of hard core advocates? That isn't a trick question. I just want to know what number you believe is correct.

Regarding surrendering freedoms, nearly every right granted in the Constitution is subject to regulation, in some cases very extensive regulation like, for instance, voter ID laws. Why should private gun sales not be regulated if doing so does not impede a proper sale? How is that surrendering a freedom? I would welcome the government assuring me that the buyer of a gun I am selling is on the up and up. Takes a load off my shoulders. What's so terrible?
 
Last edited:
No, that is not accurate.
I also used 'gun owner' when I was talking about my own brother who lacks the spine to stand up for what he should know to be his constitutional right, I didn't differentiate.
Using the term hard core gun advocate to me denotes bias, the same that relentlessly shoves their own propaganda in our collective faces.
Maybe that's my misinterpretation, but it is my perspective none the less.
 
Regarding surrendering freedoms, nearly every right granted in the Constitution is subject to regulation, in some cases very extensive regulation like, for instance, voter ID laws. Why should private gun sales not be regulated if doing so does not impede a proper sale? How is that surrendering a freedom? I would welcome the government assuring me that the buyer of a gun I am selling is on the up and up. Takes a load off my shoulders. What's so terrible?
Click to expand...

That is correct.
There is however one that reads SHALL NOT be infringed, the only one worded as such.
What was the purpose of that subject change?
Were we talking about private sales? NO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top