Petition in Oregon to make hand guns Assault weapons

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

So no one is coming for guns?
http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/043text.pdf

 

[freyasman]

Stupid. (SMH)

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Stupid. (SMH)

I agree 100 % but we know it's coming

 

[freyasman]

https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/
From the link;
"Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA"

Lot's and lot's more at the link.

 

[Capitalist]

So no one is coming for guns?
http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/043text.pdf

I want to know!

Who do these people think they are fooling?

Us? 2nd Amendment advocates? Me? No. We’ve gone over this a thousand times. No need to rehash the gross errors in facts around this.

Then who?

Let me be absolutely clear on this: They are talking to and trying to convince. . .stupid people! And they can’t even use the truth to do it. They have to lie to stupid people to get any kind of traction. And we see it everyday here from the gun banners.

So remember that, gun banners, next time you want to rail against guns whether they are assault rifles, hand guns, or if you are hiding behind some kind of lie about universal background checks.

When you rail and carry on like that. . .you are calling yourself stupid. You are embracing the lies in this whole national discussion.

Remember that.

@middleview @Bugsy McGurk @Spamature @NinaS @JuliefromOhio @Arkady

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Liberal crickets

 

[middleview]

I want to know!

Who do these people think they are fooling?

Us? 2nd Amendment advocates? Me? No. We’ve gone over this a thousand times. No need to rehash the gross errors in facts around this.

Then who?

Let me be absolutely clear on this: They are talking to and trying to convince. . .stupid people! And they can’t even use the truth to do it. They have to lie to stupid people to get any kind of traction. And we see it everyday here from the gun banners.

So remember that, gun banners, next time you want to rail against guns whether they are assault rifles, hand guns, or if you are hiding behind some kind of lie about universal background checks.

When you rail and carry on like that. . .you are calling yourself stupid. You are embracing the lies in this whole national discussion.

Remember that.

@middleview @Bugsy McGurk @Spamature @NinaS @JuliefromOhio @Arkady

You are the only one railing behind a lie here...I have argued in favor of Universal Background Checks and here you are saying I want to ban guns...I don't. Of the two of us one is an expert on what I want to do...and it ain't you.

 

[freyasman]

You are the only one railing behind a lie here...I have argued in favor of Universal Background Checks and here you are saying I want to ban guns...I don't. Of the two of us one is an expert on what I want to do...and it ain't you.

What you "want" to do, is convince everyone that UBCs are all you "want" to do..... and nobody is buying that shit.

 

[Dawg]

What you "want" to do, is convince everyone that UBCs are all you "want" to do..... and nobody is buying that shit.

Libs will only settle for complete banning of guns, he will grow hair on his head before that happens, MV wants guns banned and see see's UBC's as the way

 

[make speed limit 45]

So lets also declare cars that do over 100 mph assault vehicles and ban them too.

 

[middleview]

What you "want" to do, is convince everyone that UBCs are all you "want" to do..... and nobody is buying that shit.

Of course that is a lie, since you cannot provide one single post of mine supporting anything else. The evidence of what you want to do is all over PJ. You cannot accept any legislation that impedes the possession of guns by ex-felons, psychiatric patients or even wanted criminals who are fugitives from justice....so anyone supporting that simple proposition must be discredited with positions they've never supported...otherwise you'd have to debate based on an indefensible position.

 

[middleview]

So lets also declare cars that do over 100 mph assault vehicles and ban them too.

I think you should work on that.

 

[RickWA]

Of course that is a lie, since you cannot provide one single post of mine supporting anything else. The evidence of what you want to do is all over PJ. You cannot accept any legislation that impedes the possession of guns by ex-felons, psychiatric patients or even wanted criminals who are fugitives from justice....so anyone supporting that simple proposition must be discredited with positions they've never supported...otherwise you'd have to debate based on an indefensible position.

Lefties are incrementalist control freak LIARS. Anytime a lefty says, "I only want X...", you can bet he will be back for "Y" and "Z". One cannot negotiate with or make concessions to such tyrants and liars.

The only proper response to lefty overtures regarding "common sense" gun laws and "safeguards" is a resounding, unequivocal NO!!!

No additional background checks beyond what is currently sufficient. No registry. No imposed restrictions on magazine capacity. No more paring down Second Amendment rights period.

No meeting you in the middle. No dialog about next steps or common understanding. You will simply be REJECTED. No nuance, no subtlety.

Just No.

 

[freyasman]

Of course that is a lie, since you cannot provide one single post of mine supporting anything else. The evidence of what you want to do is all over PJ. You cannot accept any legislation that impedes the possession of guns by ex-felons, psychiatric patients or even wanted criminals who are fugitives from justice....so anyone supporting that simple proposition must be discredited with positions they've never supported...otherwise you'd have to debate based on an indefensible position.

Sure, guy....

 

[Capitalist]

You are the only one railing behind a lie here...I have argued in favor of Universal Background Checks and here you are saying I want to ban guns...I don't. Of the two of us one is an expert on what I want to do...and it ain't you.

Name one liberal who has ever said words to the effect, “Y’know, the _____ (insert high cap mag ban, assault weapons ban, universal background check or other favorite gun banner legislation) is good enough. We don’t need anymore gun legislation after that. From now on I will fight any further restrictive gun legislation because that would be excessive.”

Hasn’t happened. Doesn’t exist.

Even you. We have UBC in Colorado and here you are yapping about it still. Why? Because you want to tell people in Texas and Wyoming what to do. You will NOT be satisfied.

 

[Drumcollie]

You are the only one railing behind a lie here...I have argued in favor of Universal Background Checks and here you are saying I want to ban guns...I don't. Of the two of us one is an expert on what I want to do...and it ain't you.

I doubt that you know what you want to do politically. I bet that you do what the caucus tells you to do because you do not want to be Joe Lieberman-ed.

 

[RickWA]

Name one liberal who has ever said words to the effect, “Y’know, the _____ (insert high cap mag ban, assault weapons ban, universal background check or other favorite gun banner legislation) is good enough. We don’t need anymore gun legislation after that. From now on I will fight any further restrictive gun legislation because that would be excessive.”

Hasn’t happened. Doesn’t exist.

Even you. We have UBC in Colorado and here you are yapping about it still. Why? Because you want to tell people in Texas and Wyoming what to do. You will NOT be satisfied.

Exactly right. This guy is a gun-banning extremist, no doubt. Every post he makes - without exception- on the subject comes down on the gun control side of the debate.

 

[trapdoor]

Of course that is a lie, since you cannot provide one single post of mine supporting anything else. The evidence of what you want to do is all over PJ. You cannot accept any legislation that impedes the possession of guns by ex-felons, psychiatric patients or even wanted criminals who are fugitives from justice....so anyone supporting that simple proposition must be discredited with positions they've never supported...otherwise you'd have to debate based on an indefensible position.

Mid, even if it's not a lie on your part, the other people who call for it are supporting a more extremist agenda than you do. And just like you they smear those of us who own guns for not "compromising" when we refuse to do this one "common sense" restriction.

And the problem is, and you can dismiss it as slippery slope if you like, and you'll be wrong, that it wont' end there. When there's no reduction in crime as a result of background checks (and three years of nationwide background checks that we already had indicates there won't be), then those people listed above will come back saying, "Background checks didn't solve the problem -- the common sense thing to do is have people register their guns." And of course, anyone who won't compromise on this "common sense" restriction will then be a pariah.

And when that doesn't work (It didn't in other places), it will be, "You don't need a gun in your home, it can be stored at a range, and you can use it there or get it there to take to the field to hunt."

And then they come to the range and take them, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is known in realpolitik not as a slippery slope, but as an "incremental approach," and it was used to confiscate semiautos in Canada, and most guns except shotguns in England.

So yes, I say no to your "common sense" call for background checks. If you want to prevent the incremental approach from working, you have to oppose the increments.

 

[Drumcollie]

Mid, even if it's not a lie on your part, the other people who call for it are supporting a more extremist agenda than you do. And just like you they smear those of us who own guns for not "compromising" when we refuse to do this one "common sense" restriction.

And the problem is, and you can dismiss it as slippery slope if you like, and you'll be wrong, that it wont' end there. When there's no reduction in crime as a result of background checks (and three years of nationwide background checks that we already had indicates there won't be), then those people listed above will come back saying, "Background checks didn't solve the problem -- the common sense thing to do is have people register their guns." And of course, anyone who won't compromise on this "common sense" restriction will then be a pariah.

And when that doesn't work (It didn't in other places), it will be, "You don't need a gun in your home, it can be stored at a range, and you can use it there or get it there to take to the field to hunt."

And then they come to the range and take them, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is known in realpolitik not as a slippery slope, but as an "incremental approach," and it was used to confiscate semiautos in Canada, and most guns except shotguns in England.

So yes, I say no to your "common sense" call for background checks. If you want to prevent the incremental approach from working, you have to oppose the increments.

So yes, I say no to your "common sense" call for background checks. If you want to prevent the incremental approach from working, you have to oppose the increments

Could not have said that any better and it is really a key point here.

 

[freyasman]

Mid, even if it's not a lie on your part, the other people who call for it are supporting a more extremist agenda than you do. And just like you they smear those of us who own guns for not "compromising" when we refuse to do this one "common sense" restriction.

And the problem is, and you can dismiss it as slippery slope if you like, and you'll be wrong, that it wont' end there. When there's no reduction in crime as a result of background checks (and three years of nationwide background checks that we already had indicates there won't be), then those people listed above will come back saying, "Background checks didn't solve the problem -- the common sense thing to do is have people register their guns." And of course, anyone who won't compromise on this "common sense" restriction will then be a pariah.

And when that doesn't work (It didn't in other places), it will be, "You don't need a gun in your home, it can be stored at a range, and you can use it there or get it there to take to the field to hunt."

And then they come to the range and take them, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is known in realpolitik not as a slippery slope, but as an "incremental approach," and it was used to confiscate semiautos in Canada, and most guns except shotguns in England.

So yes, I say no to your "common sense" call for background checks. If you want to prevent the incremental approach from working, you have to oppose the increments.

It so infuriates them when we refuse to be maneuvered into a position of weakness.