Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Chris Craig said:
OB

What current gun laws in Oregon are you for and which against?
Click to expand...

See below. I marked in red what I disagree with and green what I do agree with. The main foundation of my opinions are heavy investigating of ones history, etc before getting a gun permit. But then once deemed not a threat, they should be able to purchase weapons that can actually be of use in the event of a military coup.

SlyPokerDog said:
For those who don't know what he's talking about.

FEg7LdfVIAMKUuE


FEg7UJEVgAMIrw2
Click to expand...

Chris Craig said:
So basically

IP17:

  • Requires and permit and firearms training to buy a gun...
  • Creates a database for said permits...
  • Bans magazines over 10 rounds

IP18:

  • Bans semiautomatic weapons but let's those who already own them keep them as long as they notify the state police.
I get being upset with the magazines and semis being banned ...though you keep your guns.

Why shouldn't people take a safety course or have a permit if they have a gun? We already have concealed carry permits here which have a database.
Click to expand...

We should. There should be a required safety course. Just like a drivers exam is required to operate a vehicle. But once passed, an individual should be able to purchase semi automatic weapons or there is no real defense to all of the more powerful weapons out thre already.

SlyPokerDog said:
Notice how we don't require airbags on bicycles but we don't allow kids to drive cars?
Click to expand...

But we do require helmets.

Chris Craig said:
Lol

It's been so serious in this thread today, wasn't expecting humor
Click to expand...

We can all use a bit of brevity. :)
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Those aren't current laws, those are proposed laws.

@Chris Craig asked you about the current laws.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly open ended and complex question. For example. Lets take ORS 166.260. It has several provisions within it. I may agree with one, but not the other. For example on this one. It is considered a crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly...
carriers any firearm hidden from sight on thier body.
has a gun that has a gun hidden from sight in a vehicle
is a minor (by the federal gauge of 18)
If a person has been convicted of a felony
Has been committed to the OHA for mental issues
Has been found guilty of insanity
and there are a few others...

Now take that list above, I may agree with most of it, but may not agree with the minor thing. Maybe I think that it should be 21? we allow minors to drive at 16. Levels of responsibility can vary regardless of the designated minor/adult age transition is.
So point being, I think it might be better to ask me about a specific law and how I feel about it, vs asking me to comment on every law there is, even though there aren't as many in this state compared to some others. It' s all about the degrees.

But a synopsis of what I believe is this:
A person who is wanting to own a gun, should go through a very rigorous background and mental health eval check and then a required training course they have to pass. Once done, ghey should be able to purchase the weapons of thier desire(short of nukes, ICBMS, etc. lets keep it real)
If a guy wants to buy a few AK47's he should be able to do so after passing all of the required qualifications.
I hope that helps at least partly answer the question.
 
Orion Bailey said:
This is a fairly open ended and complex question. For example. Lets take ORS 166.260. It has several provisions within it. I may agree with one, but not the other. For example on this one. It is considered a crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly...
carriers any firearm hidden from sight on thier body.
has a gun that has a gun hidden from sight in a vehicle
is a minor (by the federal gauge of 18)
If a person has been convicted of a felony
Has been committed to the OHA for mental issues
Has been found guilty of insanity

and there are a few others...

Now take that list above, I may agree with most of it, but may not agree with the minor thing. Maybe I think that it should be 21? we allow minors to drive at 16. Levels of responsibility can vary regardless of the designated minor/adult age transition is.

So point being, I think it might be better to ask me about a specific law and how I feel about it, vs asking me to comment on every law there is, even though there aren't as many in this state compared to some others. It' s all about the degrees.


But a synopsis of what I believe is this:

A person who is wanting to own a gun, should go through a very rigorous background and mental health eval check and then a required training course they have to pass. Once done, ghey should be able to purchase the weapons of thier desire(short of nukes, ICBMS, etc. lets keep it real)

If a guy wants to buy a few AK47
s he should be able to do so after passing all of the required qualifications.

I hope that helps at least partly answer the question.
Click to expand...

Quality well thought out response. Props.
 
Orion Bailey said:
This is a fairly open ended and complex question. For example. Lets take ORS 166.260. It has several provisions within it. I may agree with one, but not the other. For example on this one. It is considered a crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly...
carriers any firearm hidden from sight on thier body.
has a gun that has a gun hidden from sight in a vehicle
is a minor (by the federal gauge of 18)
If a person has been convicted of a felony
Has been committed to the OHA for mental issues
Has been found guilty of insanity

and there are a few others...

Now take that list above, I may agree with most of it, but may not agree with the minor thing. Maybe I think that it should be 21? we allow minors to drive at 16. Levels of responsibility can vary regardless of the designated minor/adult age transition is.

So point being, I think it might be better to ask me about a specific law and how I feel about it, vs asking me to comment on every law there is, even though there aren't as many in this state compared to some others. It' s all about the degrees.


But a synopsis of what I believe is this:

A person who is wanting to own a gun, should go through a very rigorous background and mental health eval check and then a required training course they have to pass. Once done, ghey should be able to purchase the weapons of thier desire(short of nukes, ICBMS, etc. lets keep it real)

If a guy wants to buy a few AK47
s he should be able to do so after passing all of the required qualifications.

I hope that helps at least partly answer the question.
Click to expand...

Minors should have guns?

It's saying it's unlawful possession of a firearm if you are a minor and carrying a gun. Minors shouldn't have guns. So what's the issue?

Otherwise I understand what you are saying agreeing with some of and disagreeing with parts of different gun laws.
 
Chris Craig said:
Minors should have guns?

It's saying it's unlawful possession of a firearm if you are a minor and carrying a gun. Minors shouldn't have guns. So what's the issue?

Otherwise I understand what you are saying agreeing with some of and disagreeing with parts of different gun laws.
Click to expand...

I went the opposite Chris, read it again. I'm not sure 18 is old enough for a fire arm in today's world. The mind is still developing and is young and naive, emotional, etc. I'd be fine if it was raised to 21, possibly even 25.
 
OB,

So without the banning you are cool with the rest of that. Do you think if a similar bill (without the bannings) was put to the floor federally, the Republicans in the Senate and house would vote for it?
 
Orion Bailey said:
I went the opposite Chris, read it again. I'm not sure 18 is old enough for a fire arm in today's world. The mind is still developing and is young and naive, emotional, etc. I'd be fine if it was raised to 21, possibly even 25.
Click to expand...

Oh ok got you. I agree. Though we are considered adults at 18, many are not mentally adults yet. I agree.
 
Chris Craig said:
OB,

So without the banning you are cool with the rest of that. Do you think if a similar bill (without the bannings) was put to the floor federally, the Republicans in the Senate and house would vote for it?
Click to expand...

Well, though my views still mostly lean conservative and republicanish, i withdrew and became an independent for various reasons, the biggest being Trumps behavior. However it wasn't the only reason. Part of it was also the increasingly rigid and noncompromising stance the GOP has been taking on many topics. And to see what happened on Jan. 6th and whats going on in Texas, i think i made the right decision.
So no, i don't think they will aNd the sad thing is, i dont think its because they think its agaisnt their right and illogical, i think it would be in spite of the Dems.
Dems do this too on certain topics. But were talking about the GOP.
The underlying and much bigger threat is everyone is being led by their emotions, triggered by aggressive headline statements without depth or context. Often misleading, or outright false headlines and satire, that people misconstrue as the truth. The polarization of both sides that continue to put up more walls instead of work together is… well its deflating to say the least.

But as long as we sit and point fingers nothing will change. And im guilty of it too. But we all…citizens, political leaders, media influentials, etc, need to stop letting our emotions rule our opinions aNd fool ourselves into them being facts to the point that if someone disagrees, they are the enemy.

Until we can get passed this mindset, there is no fixing anything. Until we can put aside what we think is right and listen to the other side and find a common ground of agreement to start to build off of, nothing is gonna get better.
We need to stop looking for whats wrong in the opposite party and find what is right. Agree on it. Work together on it. Build some foundations of trust back. Then can we start tackling the items of disagreement.

What i see is everyone just pointing fingers in a very negative, hostile way. Not sure where it started, but i don’t think it was the average citizen. It was media or politicians, but it doesn't matter anymore. it has taken a grip on our society so tight, its going to be difficult to get it loosened without casualty, in my opinion.
 
jonnyboy said:
The problem though is that guns already exist and are everywhere. At this point all any legal gun owner wants is to have the means to protect themselves and their family from the carnage you described, which many of us on both sides of this argument have indeed witnessed and would not like to be on the receiving end of.

If you could snap your fingers and make it to where guns never existed, hell yeah I’m on board. Unfortunately that’s not the reality we live in. I don’t really know what the answer is, but as long as we live in a country full of crazy people I don’t intend to be easy prey.
Click to expand...
You really, honestly feel that you are bullet worthy? No joke? You honestly go to sleep at night thinking you are important enough to be on somebody’s hit list. C’Mon man. This has nothing to do with protecting people and all about not wanting to be told what to do. No different than the vaccine. I grew up seeing people murdered and then for some reason went into the army and trained to murder people. Not sure what I was thinking. There is no place in society for guns. If you truly have seen somebody taken down there is NO way you would feel that way bro.
 
donkiez said:
The problem with "my" numbers is that everyone will always use a metric that supports their argument. For instance the murder rate in the US is 5x more than Australia and 4x more than the UK. Homicide by firearm is 30x greater in the US than Australia.

Also Japan literally has zero firearm homicides and the US has 13x more overall murders.

The US has 280 more school shootings than the next country on the list, which is Mexico at 8.

People kill each other on purpose and accident but to pretend guns play no role in that and don't make it easier is beyond head in the sand thinking.
Click to expand...
So none of those numbers take into account violent crime or murder rates change before and after enacting gun control, compared to similar countries.

The numbers I posted look at the big picture. Evidence of actual lives saved. Not from an emotional perspective.

And there is nothing that can really dispute that other than "guns are bad because I said so".

And sorry, but that's just not good enough. That's just more political left vs right BS, IMO.

Welcome to why Republicans beat Democrats so often.
 
donkiez said:
I don't buy the argument that the problem is too bad, so let's do nothing. If we did something 20 years ago the problem would not be this bad today. And if we do something (anything) today then the problem will be less bad in 20 years. Also let's not pretend that people are realisticlly asking for or expecting a complete ban on all firearms and to disarm law abiding citizen. That's just a red herring
Click to expand...
We did something. We did an assault weapons ban in the mid 90s. It lasted a decade and made absolutely no difference.

Even democrats couldn't make up reasons to extend it.
 
MARIS61 said:
No, it isn't.

The Second Amendment has a singular, clearly stated purpose: To deter/prevent or counter the threat of America's military being used against American Citizens by a corrupt or conquered American government.

Any talk about defense against home invaders, muggers and rapists is a modern political red herring designed to hide the sole reason for it's creation and existence.

For people who can't understand 1700's English, it simply says "Because America needs a national military to defend us from other countries, American Citizens need to be able to defeat that military force should it ever be used against them.

That's it. Nothing else. The multiple debates leading to the precise wording and enactment of the Second Amendment made this perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
Uh oh for Phatguysrule, Maris agrees with you.
 
Phatguysrule said:
So it's pointless and has no chance of passing.

More people are killed with blunt objects than are killed with rifles of any kind. I'd much rather be shot with a semiautomatic rifle than beaten to death with a bat... 4x as many are killed by knives...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. You can defend yourself against a bat or knife. I have survived being attacked by a knife. I'm very glad it wasn't a gun.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yeah, that'll never be accepted nationally. In fact it will likely hurt the efforts at progress nationally. It'll be used as an example of government punishing gun owners...

Good times.
Click to expand...
Which is unfortunate, because it actually makes some sense.
 
THE HCP said:
You really, honestly feel that you are bullet worthy? No joke? You honestly go to sleep at night thinking you are important enough to be on somebody’s hit list. C’Mon man. This has nothing to do with protecting people and all about not wanting to be told what to do. No different than the vaccine. I grew up seeing people murdered and then for some reason went into the army and trained to murder people. Not sure what I was thinking. There is no place in society for guns. If you truly have seen somebody taken down there is NO way you would feel that way bro.
Click to expand...

I just don’t accept the basis of your arguments on this. The idea that you have to be a selected target to be a victim of violence, or that all people who’ve seen people shot, like you have, share your opinion. People are randomly victimized every single day and it’s not necessarily because someone was wanting vengeance on them. They may have just had something shiny, or simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are also members of the military who’ve served in the very branch you did, and seen violence at the end of a firearm, who support the second amendment and probably disagree with you on this. In fact if you surveyed all military veterans I think you’d find an overwhelming majority that are on the opposite side and support the right to own firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top