Gun Control

[vla1ne]

Well, it's a good thing that it's a ballot initiative that isn't currently on the November ballot. Even if it gets on it, rural Oregon is going to make passing it a hell of a time. Oregon is mainly blue because of Portland, Salem, Eugene, etc. after all.

i've seen as much, and i'm honestly a bit shocked that anybody would even attempt to put up something like this within the states. this is the most textbook definition of "coming for your guns" that i've ever seen, and whomever put their name on this ballot has almost certainly killed their political career in any red state ever, and even in many a blue one.

 

 

 let's just say rural Oregon doesn't have much love for Portland.

i've seen almost more hate for portland in the past 24 hours while looking up this law, than i've seen for california in the past month,

[Dad]

Damn. I didn't realize people were having so many firefights with multiple intruders. Typically, when someone breaks into a home, isn't it with 3 or less persons?

 

That's a lot of bullets flying around your house. It's the wild wild West isn't it?

 

And police presence and response is already awful everywhere, so maybe the extra six bullets in your glock will keep you alive for another 2 minutes or so. But i would think if you're in a firefight in your home, you're being attacked by some really average burglars.

[vla1ne]

Damn. I didn't realize people were having so many firefights with multiple intruders. Typically, when someone breaks into a home, isn't it with 3 or less persons?

 

That's a lot of bullets flying around your house. It's the wild wild West isn't it?

 

And police presence and response is already awful everywhere, so maybe the extra six bullets in your glock will keep you alive for another 2 minutes or so. But i would think if you're in a firefight in your home, you're being attacked by some really average burglars.

it's not just the chance of a firefight, that was just one example of why this would be bad from a defensive standpoint. it neuters the variation of defense, and would do nothing to the pary acting illegally, this goes for more than burgalary as well. just burgalary was the most prominent thing in my head at the time. it's the drastic reduction in the freedoms of lawful gun carrying citizens. when people use the slippery slope fallacy, this is the exact thing they mean by it. this proposal would effectively take away your guns. and the worst part about it, is that it does so in the most sneaky way possible. 

 

were i to liken it to the 1st amendment, it would be like claimnig 'We aren't trying to police what you say' then proposing a law stating that you could not say sentences that contain any of X words. it's the removal of freedoms, under the guise of protection, when in truth, it grants nothing.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

i've seen as much, and i'm honestly a bit shocked that anybody would even attempt to put up something like this within the states. this is the most textbook definition of "coming for your guns" that i've ever seen, and whomever put their name on this ballot has almost certainly killed their political career in any red state ever, and even in many a blue one.

 

 

i've seen almost more hate for portland in the past 24 hours while looking up this law, than i've seen for california in the past month,

I thought I'd pull this nap from Wikipedia that shows the political lean of Oregon based on the 2016 Presidential Election to demonstrate just how un-Blue Oregon as a Blue State is when counties are considered.

 

 

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say the Republicans in those blue counties aren't going to let this initiative pass. If this initiative makes it to the ballot, I'll be paying attention to the blue counties the most as those counties would decide whether it passes or fails imo, especially considering how light some of them are.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I thought I'd pull this nap from Wikipedia that shows the political lean of Oregon based on the 2016 Presidential Election to demonstrate just how un-Blue Oregon as a Blue State is when counties are considered.

 

 

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say the Republicans in those blue counties aren't going to let this initiative pass. If this initiative makes it to the ballot, I'll be paying attention to the blue counties the most as those counties would decide whether it passes or fails imo, especially considering how light some of them are.

That dark blue part is portland I'm guessing?

 

Interesting Oregon tidbit, one of the Dems's safest vote sinks finally fell

 

In Presidential elections the county was between 1930 and 2010 among the most consistently Democratic in the United States. The last Republican to win a majority in Columbia County had been Herbert Hoover in the 1928 presidential election, although before 1930 no Democrat had won a majority in the county since Samuel J. Tilden in 1876. However in 2016, Donald Trump won the county with just under fifty percent of the vote ending the tradition of choosing Democrats for president. That stated, the margin had been as little as three percent in 2004 and in 1984

[Nathanael D. Striker]

That dark blue part is portland I'm guessing?

 

Interesting Oregon tidbit, one of the Dems's safest vote sinks finally fell

 

In Presidential elections the county was between 1930 and 2010 among the most consistently Democratic in the United States. The last Republican to win a majority in Columbia County had been Herbert Hoover in the 1928 presidential election, although before 1930 no Democrat had won a majority in the county since Samuel J. Tilden in 1876. However in 2016, Donald Trump won the county with just under fifty percent of the vote ending the tradition of choosing Democrats for president. That stated, the margin had been as little as three percent in 2004 and in 1984

Yes, the dark blue is Portland. Well, it technically is Multnomah County, but the Portland Metro Area (Portland, Gresham, Troutdale, a bit of Milwaukee, etc.) pretty much encompasses most of the county.

 

An interesting fact about Oregon is that while the Governorship has been held by a Democrat for almost three decades, Democrats have only had control (or shared in the case of the House 2011-2012 in the Senate) of both Houses since 2007. Before that, it was split or Republican control. Hell, the House in the 90's and early 2000's was in Republican hands with a similar trend for the Senate. So yea, interesting set of history there.

 

Why does this matter for Gun Control? It paints a harsh reality of the ballot initiative not passing in a somewhat conservative blue state (one of Oregon's Congressman is a Blue Dog after all). Do note the characterization I used takes into account the composition of the State.

[vla1ne]

it's about 2-3 weeks old by now, but thought it would be interesting to watch, and might spark some new direction in the topic:

 

 

the short of it is, a guy pulls out a tiny knife in the middle of what i believe is either a PTA meeting, or some sort of school board session. it's short, and makes a powerful point imo, that at the very least, armed security is mandatory in a school setting.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Well, I found this while scrolling through Quora today.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/massachusetts-federal-court-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-ar-15-assault-875779

 

I don't know what's going on here as it doesn't give the entire ruling, but I'm not liking this. Other sources such as TIME are reporting this too.

[vla1ne]

Well, I found this while scrolling through Quora today.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/massachusetts-federal-court-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-ar-15-assault-875779

 

I don't know what's going on here as it doesn't give the entire ruling, but I'm not liking this. Other sources such as TIME are reporting this too.

the comments on the article (by people who actually know what the AR-15 is and does)  really say all that needs to be said about this ban. it's a backwards ban based on irrational fear and ignorance of facts. targeting the scariest looking gun they could think of, coupled with blatant lies and the fact that it is literally taking your guns away while saying "nobody wants to take your guns away".

 

in other words, ths fustercluck of an article tells everything that needs to be told about why gun owners are so paranoid about people messing with the 2nd amendment.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

the comments on the article (by people who actually know what the AR-15 is and does) really say all that needs to be said about this ban. it's a backwards ban based on irrational fear and ignorance of facts. targeting the scariest looking gun they could think of, coupled with blatant lies and the fact that it is literally taking your guns away while saying "nobody wants to take your guns away".

 

in other words, ths fustercluck of an article tells everything that needs to be told about why gun owners are so paranoid about people messing with the 2nd amendment.

It's getting tougher in New Jersey: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/nyregion/new-jersey-gun-control.html

 

Essentially, that Oregon Ballot Initiative found another home in New Jersey along with some roommates like "justifiable need".

[vla1ne]

yep. stripping people of their freedoms, all the while convincing them it's what they asked for.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Thought I'd (necro)bump this with an update on Oregon Initiative 43: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ban_on_Certain_Firearms_and_Magazines_with_More_than_a_10-Round_Capacity_Initiative_(2018)

 

It looks like supporters are going for the 2020 ballot due to court challenges causing them to run out of time to collect signatures.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Thought I'd (necro)bump this with an update on Oregon Initiative 43: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Ban_on_Certain_Firearms_and_Magazines_with_More_than_a_10-Round_Capacity_Initiative_(2018)

 

It looks like supporters are going for the 2020 ballot due to court challenges causing them to run out of time to collect signatures.

Judge Kavanaugh ruled that was unconstitutional when he was on the DC circuit, there's 5 votes now

[cr47t]

I personally think that placing blanket bans on assault weapons isn't a very streamlined idea, since it fails to acknowledge that desperate people will always try to loophole their way around. AT the same time I think arming more people, especially teachers, is a incredibly stupid idea in it's advocated form, since a lot of the people advocating it don't seem to be advocating any kind of test to see if any given person can be trusted with deadly force.

 

I would support a "selective ban" that only restricts people from obtaining guns in specific scenarios, such as if the person in question has been convicted in court of murder, attempted murder, blackmail with threats of deadly force, domestic abuse, etc. I would also support a law requiring people to report when a gun has been stolen, since if a person is going to get a gun by breaking the law, chances are they're going to use it to break the law.

 

But I think a blanket ban is a dumb first-resort, and the same goes for arming more people, as well as the way this entire argument plays out. Most of the reasonable people with opinions on this issue want the same thing: less violence in America. But the only people who get the spotlight are the ones taking hardline stances and showing intolerance toward anyone with different opinions. (the NRA and the more hardline gun control advocates) But can't we just accept that we want the same thing and work together to get there?