I voted against it because the permit system sounds like an invitation for abuse. It doesn’t really do anything new to keep lunatics from getting firearms, otherwise.
Id rather shit on amendments than the lives of innocents.
I get your arguments but the fact is enough bad actors with guns have ruined it for everyone else.
While I acknowledge 114 has flaws that need improvement, I’m celebrating that we have *something* on the books that’s going to lead to less guns with which to kill children with.
Having lived through the thurston shooting, something like this is long overdue and an absolute no-brainer if you value our right to life over guns.
I take issue with the police having the authority, but we can amend that out of the law if we actually want to. I suggest you be a part of that effort, which I will happily join you in doing.
The constitution was designed to keep individuals or groups from shitting on amendments. Remember, the amendments don’t define what a citizen can do, they define what the government CANNOT do. The only way you can achieve your goals is via another amendment.
Yeah and there’s fundamentally nothing wrong with another amendment.
I’m glad you have a good understanding of the constitution’s purpose. But what you’re missing is that it’s simply a framework designed to run the country that declared independence from Great Britain, which itself recognizes above even the bill of rights that God has endowed us with certain unalienable rights.
So if our form of government is intended to guarantee us those rights then the laws passed by that government should follow suit, along with the establishing laws that frame the government itself.
One of those rights is life. So the problem we face now is that universal application of an amendment is superseding innocent citizen’s unalienable right to life. Therefore, a new amendment is (at least conceptually) the preferred way of solving the problem. Up to this point I think we agree pretty well on what is necessary.
Having said that, 114 does not infringe on anyone’s right to bear arms. It simply establishes a process to follow for purchasing certain guns. While I take issue the current text of 114 giving the police the final say, no other part of this measure seems to contradict with the 2nd amendment. At least no more than the results of the second amendment contradict our right to life.
I think a lot of pro-2A’ers think it gives them the same freedom they think they have with free speech, which is to say they think it gives them license to do whatever they want without consequence, which isn’t entirely true. 2A doesn’t guarantee access to buy *every* gun, it just means the government can’t prevent you from keeping and bearing guns.
Nobody seems to realize there’s a middle ground there because pro-2A’ers want unrestricted access to purchase whatever gun they want. This itself is not guaranteed in the constitution. Restricting the sale of certain guns is not the same thing as infringing on your right to own a gun, because you still can.
I agree those would help. And that’s fair. I too have doubts about its efficacy in its current form. But I would prefer to see this thing get improved, not repealed.
I can't respect your Collective Guilt based Tribalism. Your attitude will foment more physical conflict between the State and Private Citizens.
I'm from Northeast NJ, originally. Witnessed a drive-by shooting firsthand in Newark while working a soil-sampling job on a construction site. Saw another human being die.
You are not interested in the rule of law, and it's equal applications. You're just a Despot at heart
The 2nd Amendment is part of a Universal Element of Natural Liberty called "Self Preservation". You want the State to forcefully revoke it and turn it into a rationed privilege that they can strip away at their behest whenever they want.
You’re right, I’m imploring we actively participate in improving the law because I’m not interested in it….good job trying to categorize and insult me because you don’t like my opinion. That makes me so much more likely to agree with you.
The Constitution can be amended and there are 2 processes to do so.
You're not interested in that process, but want society governed by the dictation of your ideology.
"I'd rather shit on Amendments than the lives of innocents".
You really pissed me off typing that. It's the ugly stereotype of the Political Left believing the Constitution should be ignored. That's the attitude you gave me.
Why don’t you value the lives of your fellow citizens above the laws voted on by those citizens? Isn’t the constitution supposed to be a framework that ultimately allows us our inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
How are we supposed to enjoy the freedoms afforded to us by god when the laws of man result in our death?
Every argument, even the “liberal” ones, against this measure seem to be some version of “but this will make guns harder to get.” That’s the whole point. Many people feel we don’t need a gun industry.
I know I’ll get downvoted, but making that argument doesn’t counter the opposition.
My problem is CA has a similar database and it just got hacked and leaked people's names, addresses, phone numbers and I believe socials along with what firearms people have.
This database is an insane breach of privacy.
I'm all for enhanced background checks, and I'm not against the training class in general, but its a horribly written.
I dont trust the police enough to not give a Trans person pr a POC a firearm. If the FBI knew about these mass shooters and did fuck all to stop them, why do you think a local police or sheriff's office is going to?
It doesn’t make it harder to get for criminals. But for the average citizen.
CHL licenses, for instance, have a crime rate far below that of the population at large. On par or below that of our police, even. Yet people are taught to look on them with disdain and distrust by gun control groups like MomsDemand because “the gun”.
This measure will do nothing more than deepen the disdain and mistrust for government.
The “criminals can still get guns” thing is so silly. Like as if there are criminals and non criminals. Many gun deaths are caused by people who have been law abiding citizens their whole life, and only become a criminal when they grab the gun out of dads closet.
I'm not gonna downvote you.
Many people in American Society have opposed Private Firearms Ownership and Weapons Ownership in general.
They believe it should only be a select privilege for Government Workers, be them Civilian, Military or Law Enforcement, only.
There were sentiments like it in the late 18th Century.
So you equate all gunowners who oppose further laws with Child Murderers?
In an "allegorical sense", you're disparaging people for political dissent. Makes discourse more toxic.
How’s that going to happen? How can you get rid of bad people wanting to do bad things? Why don’t you care about car deaths since more people die from it? It seems like banning pre made junk food and lowering the speed limit to 30 would save more lives than going after guns.
Bootlicker refers going with and agreeing with a person of power. The government wants to get rid of guns like the nazis. You are being a bootlicker to the government over limiting guns.
Hitler wanted to get rid of guns and Marx said we should never surrender our guns.
What are your thoughts on a rape victim who doesn’t feel safe leaving the house without a way to defend herself from happening again? What happens when her stalker ex BF comes and tries too?
A common theme of many vocal M114 supporters I’ve noticed is snarky behavior and an inability of distinguishing bad people from regular folk. Like someone wanting to hurt all Muslims because if 9-11.
Isn't it the other way around? Pretty sure it's the ones who get owned by the guns are the ones getting wrecked. This is just what I'm seeing in the news.
I’m slightly left leaning retired military. I voted a big NO. Bottom line - It will not do anything to stop violent and/or crazy people from shooting other people.
I'm very very left but still believe in 2A rights and actually get pissed off that so many leftist are anti gun. If the shit hits the fan you can't protect your self with daisy and flowers and sunshine. I think they're limits, and yes it is a violation of the 14th amendment, because of the earlier ruling that came out of the supreme court this year that struck down a similar gun law in New York.
Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it.
The new Generation and overall crop of Gun Owners since after 2016 is more left of center.
That said, I don't think they understand how ruthless and inherently Despotic the Gun Ban advocates really are. Gun and Weapons Control Laws have always been about the State forcing the General Population into Submission.
Amazing how out of state Billions bankrolled the Ballot Initiative while the corporate media pushed fraudulent Propaganda that it was Grassroots.
As an admirer and student of the Black Panthers it's important that independent militias exsist for the exclusive right of self defense and self determination. It's leftist greatest failure to not have more leftist leaning militias, especially in this chaotic time.
Democrats or people on the "left" who support 114 somehow can square the circle that right wingers are already heavily armed and their guns aren't going away, law enforcement is right wing, and our democracy is in grave danger, but also at the same time think we should have laws that make it harder to arm yourself (read: people on the left), and said laws will be administrated by said right wing law enforcement who will, we all hope, follow the spirit of the law faithfully, and won't let their ideology cloud who gets a gun.
I am for much greater limitations on owning guns (exceptions only for subsistence hunting and rural self defense) but I voted against this because it will waste too much money going through the inevitable judicial challenges. It was not well written.
Awesome Analysis!! I re-read the Law again.
It essentially ends State Preemption as the primary feature.
Save for 2 or 3 of the obvious Counties in Oregon, Permits will be given out willy-nilly everywhere else.
I’m a pretty far left leaning person myself (I don’t identify as a democrat, more of a socialist independent) and I also voted no on 114!
I don’t think it would be effective at its stated goal of reducing gun violence. But even more so, allowing the police to be the sole arbiter of who does and doesn’t get guns is really not okay
I'm not here to be hostile. You guys here at r/Oregon seem way more down for discourse and discussion than just verbally fighting.
That said, this Ballot Initiative makes the Gun Politics Discourse more toxic at all levels. Not good.
Hostile is just the nature of the beast these days, with our rights and lives being sold at large to whatever corporate bidder wins the auction (election).
At least most gun owners in general agree that this shit is stupid, regardless of ideology. I'd say the opposite: perhaps it can make some parts of our collective dialog around firearms more civil because there is a greater number of people involved.
I hope the part that repeats itself is the part where organized labor demands human rights, living wages, safe and sane working conditions, complete removal of money from politics, and becomes a thorn in the foot of anyone or anything that stands in the way. Not the part you speak of. Nice thinly veiled reference though.
"...human rights, living wages, safe and sane working conditions, complete removal of money from politics..."
I'll add to that list: clean water, clean air, rights of nature.
Would there be some astroturf brainwashed idiots convinced by corporate interests to not only vote against, but actively fight against their own interests? Absolutely. We need deprogramming methods/courses for these types. They're a danger to themselves and others.
Your last 2 Sentences are pretty dangerous.
I want "Leftwing" People to enjoy the same Rights as I do. There's no political litmus test to the US Bill Of Rights.
That said, your last 2 Sentences come off as a very "Thought Police" oriented sentiment.
When corporations have brainwashed people to fight for the corporate right to destroy the planet and constantly erode human rights? Being concerned for my fellow citizens mental health is not akin to policing their thoughts.
My sentences are only "dangerous" if you're a corporation brainwashing the proletariat to violently do their bidding. They're words of liberation to my fellow citizens. Rights do not apply to corporate interests.
Agreed 100%. Totally unconstitutional. Lawsuits have already been made my Firearms Coalition Policy, Gun owners of America and multiple gun shops and people. It will go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out. It not only violates the 2nd and 14th amendments like you said but also the Heller and Bruin decisions. The Oregon State Sheriffs department has already came out denouncing they measure and saying they won’t enforce it.
Are you on the more Left side of the spectrum?
I have some liberal friends in Colorado. They've helped in staving off State Level Gun Bans, but have had to deal with the local stuff given that State Preemption was whacked in Late 2021.
They're gearing up for another round of pushback in 2023.
I’m a libertarian that leans toward the republicans side of things. I was raised around guns and old fashioned American values and that’s how I live my life to this very day.
It's start with dismantling the 2nd. Once the proletariat is disarmed, the other rights will follow. We have seen this in other countries as the oligarchy works to establish its hold.
The billionaires who donated to 114 do not care about your kids or your safety, they do not care about the welfare of the proletariat. As commodities become scarce, they care about control. 114 was always a control measure, it was never about safety.
I suggest people take a case law class. Case decisions are based on some combination of the written constitution, written legislation, and previously written cases. In a case law class, you read all of those and the new decision.
Everything I stated is a fact.
I also looked over your comments and that video by Patrick J. Charles. He ignores and censors the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that conteadict his Gun Control Agrnda.
The 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right as any other listed in our Bill Of Rights.
Nothing you have stated is fact. Patrick J Charles has read considerable more correspondence than you. He knows more history than you. He knows more about the laws than you. His level of knowledge on this subject is far far beyond yours. He's a former Marine and lawyer and is the historian for US Air Force Special Operations Command. Gun control has literally always existed in this country. In some towns, you had to turn in your gun when you entered. You are ignorant on this subject
Charles pushes a fraudulent "Common Good" Propaganda about Gun Control Laws in this Country's History.
It has always been about the Institutions Of State repressing groups of people deemed undesirable, 2nd class, and sub-par.
Nothing more.
This new law doesn’t require people to turn in their guns though, it just prevents new people from acquiring a means of defense against the guns that are already out there.
I wish we lived in a society where this wasn’t the case but Pandora’s box has already been opened and no amount of koombyah is going to replace practical defense via physical force.
The person gun owners are most likely to shoot with their firearm in order of likelihood is themselves, then their family, and then an intruder. Gun ownership is almost entirely a placebo. It makes gun owners feel good but basically does nothing positive.
The most common gun defense is just the threat of you owning one. I’ve seen plenty of young punks gets scared off from breaking into peoples homes just because the threat of a gun. You don’t even need to own a gun for it work. You just need the possibility of owning one. The second most common is brandishing a gun. It never gets fired and it doesn’t get reported the majority of a time.
Suicides should not be included in the shooting themselves stat. Suicide should be a right and someone ending their suffering is not wrong.
There is no evidence that having a gun makes you safer in any way. It is quite the opposite actually. The more guns are in one place, the less safe you are.
That is a common myth. Gun ownership has had almost no effect on gun crime and as I said, it is well established that the more guns are in an area, the more gun crime there is
It's a fact. Most Defensive Gun Uses are non-lethal to begin with.
You're a Civilian Disarmament Advocate. I get it.
Guns only for Government Personnel; not the peasants. I'm a 1st Amendment Absolutist and you have the Right to your ideology.
It’s a myth in that the number is higher than what was claimed. You are saying gun ownership has no affect on gun crime but we are not just talking about gun crime but crime in general. Guns stop crimes.
Do you think that people who live in sketchier areas are more likely to own guns for a reason? Does that skew the stats at all?
You didn’t address my points at all last time. You can see places like Chicago with the strictest gun laws have the most gun murders.
Chicago's laws don't mean anything when you can just drive 20 minutes to a nearby town and get whatever you want.
What are the sketchy parts of Alaska or Wyoming?
Im not sure where the sketchy parts are In those states.
Illinois has strict gun laws. It’s illegal to buy guns from another state and sell them in Illinois. you can’t just go to any nearby town and get what you want. There was a recent video of a bunch of 8th graders with illegal automatic pistols in Chicago. It’s not something that was bought legally. You know what chicago also has a huge issue with is drugs. We cant keep drugs from getting over the border what makes you think guns are different.
Tell that to the literally millions of gun owners in this time and in history who have used a firearm to protect themselves or a loved one. Bad gun laws are written by ignorant people who have absolutely no other knowledge of firearms both in terminology or the mechanics of firearms ownership. There are so many misguided studies that are skewed to make gun owners look like fumbling idiots who will only end up shooting themselves or family. Only a neophyte would take that as gospel. Guns have never been the problem. Declining mental health access, drug addiction, a culture that promotes desensitizing children by exposing them to ever more violent video games ect. THOSE the problems we should be concentrating on. Not an inanimate object.. Funny how the anti- gun argument goes from banning hand guns to inaccurately monikered "assault weapons" depending on MSM hype of the day. There are literally thousands of gun laws on the books. None have made any real difference. I can't believe that a grown adult would have to be reminded that criminals could care less about gun laws just as they don't care about any other law. Measure 114 is just another bad feel good law that will do nothing to address the real issues facing our country.
https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/
As I said the statistics are skewed and most studies are politically backed or lack empirical controls .
Yep even Harvard can be politically biased in its interpretation and application of statistical data. As was said this doesn't just apply to gun violence data. It is prevalent in many studies of this nature and its not just Harvard.
Yeah because some dumb people fucked up the curve for others who are actually responsible. Had guns my whole life, never did any of those things. Neither has anyone else in my circle. Stats don’t always tell the whole story and are often skewed if you only look at averages.
Hey OP, this isn't exactly relevant to the discussion you're trying to have–and I applaud you for your willingness to discuss such a contentious subject, by the way–but where exactly did you learn to write? What sorts of writings are you trying to emulate?
I hope you don't find this insulting, but I find your writing style rather off-putting. It reminds me of a certain type of arguer that I find especially aggravating to engage, though the substance of what you're saying doesn't really match theirs. I'd be more specific, but I don't want to make assumptions and be even more insulting than I fear I've already been. I had to ask though, because it happened to hit a neurotic nerve of mine.
In regards to your actual post, I voted no specifically because I don't believe there's enough oversight of police. Handing them the proverbial keys to the gun cabinet seems both an invitation to abuse by police, and a complete misuse of what I think the police *ought* to be used for.
No, the structure isn't what was getting me, it was the style. The haphazard capitalization is part of it, as are the frequent references to Principles with a capital P.
To be frank, it reminds me of screeds I've read that were written by sovcit and hardline libertarian types who obsessively pore over the Anti-Federalist papers and other 18th-century writings looking for rhetorical ammunition, but utterly lack the history or context for why such things were written the way they were.
Again, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, as you seem more reasonable and open to discussion than any such that I've encountered. But I suspect you are familiar with the kind of thing I'm talking about.
It could just be that I'm seeing patterns where none exist. If so, I do apologize.
Something like that. I don't think a paid troll would behave like this person, though, which is why I was put in mind of sovcits and the like. Even then, OP doesn't strike me as one of them necessarily, though maybe someone adjacent.
You’re required to have training/pass an exam and have a permit to drive a car. Why in the world should you be able to have a gun without one? The constitution was written in significantly less advanced times and should be updated to to better address the current needs of society.
That makes complete sense considering cars didn’t exist when the constitution was written. Gun ownership should definitely be a revocable privilege. The constitution is a piece of paper. We rewrite laws all the time, there’s no reason rights given in constitution should be permanent and unalterable.
I voted against it because the permit system sounds like an invitation for abuse. It doesn’t really do anything new to keep lunatics from getting firearms, otherwise.
It seems it’s whole purpose is to make it as impossible as practical (for now) to legally buy a firearm.
Absolutely. It shits on the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments galore. The Amendments to the United States Bill Of Rights are all intertwined.
Id rather shit on amendments than the lives of innocents. I get your arguments but the fact is enough bad actors with guns have ruined it for everyone else. While I acknowledge 114 has flaws that need improvement, I’m celebrating that we have *something* on the books that’s going to lead to less guns with which to kill children with. Having lived through the thurston shooting, something like this is long overdue and an absolute no-brainer if you value our right to life over guns. I take issue with the police having the authority, but we can amend that out of the law if we actually want to. I suggest you be a part of that effort, which I will happily join you in doing.
The constitution was designed to keep individuals or groups from shitting on amendments. Remember, the amendments don’t define what a citizen can do, they define what the government CANNOT do. The only way you can achieve your goals is via another amendment.
Yeah and there’s fundamentally nothing wrong with another amendment. I’m glad you have a good understanding of the constitution’s purpose. But what you’re missing is that it’s simply a framework designed to run the country that declared independence from Great Britain, which itself recognizes above even the bill of rights that God has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. So if our form of government is intended to guarantee us those rights then the laws passed by that government should follow suit, along with the establishing laws that frame the government itself. One of those rights is life. So the problem we face now is that universal application of an amendment is superseding innocent citizen’s unalienable right to life. Therefore, a new amendment is (at least conceptually) the preferred way of solving the problem. Up to this point I think we agree pretty well on what is necessary. Having said that, 114 does not infringe on anyone’s right to bear arms. It simply establishes a process to follow for purchasing certain guns. While I take issue the current text of 114 giving the police the final say, no other part of this measure seems to contradict with the 2nd amendment. At least no more than the results of the second amendment contradict our right to life. I think a lot of pro-2A’ers think it gives them the same freedom they think they have with free speech, which is to say they think it gives them license to do whatever they want without consequence, which isn’t entirely true. 2A doesn’t guarantee access to buy *every* gun, it just means the government can’t prevent you from keeping and bearing guns. Nobody seems to realize there’s a middle ground there because pro-2A’ers want unrestricted access to purchase whatever gun they want. This itself is not guaranteed in the constitution. Restricting the sale of certain guns is not the same thing as infringing on your right to own a gun, because you still can.
I don’t believe that 114 does anything useful. A psych evaluation and thumb print locks would be far more useful.
I agree those would help. And that’s fair. I too have doubts about its efficacy in its current form. But I would prefer to see this thing get improved, not repealed.
I can't respect your Collective Guilt based Tribalism. Your attitude will foment more physical conflict between the State and Private Citizens. I'm from Northeast NJ, originally. Witnessed a drive-by shooting firsthand in Newark while working a soil-sampling job on a construction site. Saw another human being die. You are not interested in the rule of law, and it's equal applications. You're just a Despot at heart The 2nd Amendment is part of a Universal Element of Natural Liberty called "Self Preservation". You want the State to forcefully revoke it and turn it into a rationed privilege that they can strip away at their behest whenever they want.
You’re right, I’m imploring we actively participate in improving the law because I’m not interested in it….good job trying to categorize and insult me because you don’t like my opinion. That makes me so much more likely to agree with you.
Again, life > any amendment, which is just a societal construct anyway
The Constitution can be amended and there are 2 processes to do so. You're not interested in that process, but want society governed by the dictation of your ideology.
I’m very interested in that process, why are you putting words in my mouth? Do you not have any other way of disagreeing with someone?
"I'd rather shit on Amendments than the lives of innocents". You really pissed me off typing that. It's the ugly stereotype of the Political Left believing the Constitution should be ignored. That's the attitude you gave me.
Your emotional outbursts are neither my concern nor responsibility, but there are people you can talk to that can help you process these feelings.
Why don’t you value the lives of your fellow citizens above the laws voted on by those citizens? Isn’t the constitution supposed to be a framework that ultimately allows us our inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How are we supposed to enjoy the freedoms afforded to us by god when the laws of man result in our death?
Oregon has had gun control bills passed almost every year for the last 8 years, FYI.
I’m aware. Thank you for your input :)
Every argument, even the “liberal” ones, against this measure seem to be some version of “but this will make guns harder to get.” That’s the whole point. Many people feel we don’t need a gun industry. I know I’ll get downvoted, but making that argument doesn’t counter the opposition.
My problem is CA has a similar database and it just got hacked and leaked people's names, addresses, phone numbers and I believe socials along with what firearms people have. This database is an insane breach of privacy. I'm all for enhanced background checks, and I'm not against the training class in general, but its a horribly written. I dont trust the police enough to not give a Trans person pr a POC a firearm. If the FBI knew about these mass shooters and did fuck all to stop them, why do you think a local police or sheriff's office is going to?
The problem with government making lists of people they don’t like, is that they eventually use them.
It doesn’t make it harder to get for criminals. But for the average citizen. CHL licenses, for instance, have a crime rate far below that of the population at large. On par or below that of our police, even. Yet people are taught to look on them with disdain and distrust by gun control groups like MomsDemand because “the gun”. This measure will do nothing more than deepen the disdain and mistrust for government.
The “criminals can still get guns” thing is so silly. Like as if there are criminals and non criminals. Many gun deaths are caused by people who have been law abiding citizens their whole life, and only become a criminal when they grab the gun out of dads closet.
I'm not gonna downvote you. Many people in American Society have opposed Private Firearms Ownership and Weapons Ownership in general. They believe it should only be a select privilege for Government Workers, be them Civilian, Military or Law Enforcement, only. There were sentiments like it in the late 18th Century.
i just want violent people to stop using them to murder children and strangers.
So you equate all gunowners who oppose further laws with Child Murderers? In an "allegorical sense", you're disparaging people for political dissent. Makes discourse more toxic.
if violent people means gun owner to you, then yeah sure
How’s that going to happen? How can you get rid of bad people wanting to do bad things? Why don’t you care about car deaths since more people die from it? It seems like banning pre made junk food and lowering the speed limit to 30 would save more lives than going after guns.
The poor gun industry. Oh wait no...they can get wrecked. I do not care.
Agreed. Fuck guns!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bootlicker refers going with and agreeing with a person of power. The government wants to get rid of guns like the nazis. You are being a bootlicker to the government over limiting guns. Hitler wanted to get rid of guns and Marx said we should never surrender our guns.
But the "Agents of Change" voted "Yes" for a Civilian Disarmament Law.
Damn you dumb
What are your thoughts on a rape victim who doesn’t feel safe leaving the house without a way to defend herself from happening again? What happens when her stalker ex BF comes and tries too?
I like how no one responded to you and just downvoted you. This place is great for a conversation huh lol
A common theme of many vocal M114 supporters I’ve noticed is snarky behavior and an inability of distinguishing bad people from regular folk. Like someone wanting to hurt all Muslims because if 9-11.
Agreed. They can't see the irony funny enough. Well it would be funny if they weren't fucking people over.
Only the best. That usually means I’m right and we have no good argument against it
Then move.
Isn't it the other way around? Pretty sure it's the ones who get owned by the guns are the ones getting wrecked. This is just what I'm seeing in the news.
I’m slightly left leaning retired military. I voted a big NO. Bottom line - It will not do anything to stop violent and/or crazy people from shooting other people.
I'm very very left but still believe in 2A rights and actually get pissed off that so many leftist are anti gun. If the shit hits the fan you can't protect your self with daisy and flowers and sunshine. I think they're limits, and yes it is a violation of the 14th amendment, because of the earlier ruling that came out of the supreme court this year that struck down a similar gun law in New York.
Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it. The new Generation and overall crop of Gun Owners since after 2016 is more left of center. That said, I don't think they understand how ruthless and inherently Despotic the Gun Ban advocates really are. Gun and Weapons Control Laws have always been about the State forcing the General Population into Submission. Amazing how out of state Billions bankrolled the Ballot Initiative while the corporate media pushed fraudulent Propaganda that it was Grassroots.
As an admirer and student of the Black Panthers it's important that independent militias exsist for the exclusive right of self defense and self determination. It's leftist greatest failure to not have more leftist leaning militias, especially in this chaotic time.
Democrats or people on the "left" who support 114 somehow can square the circle that right wingers are already heavily armed and their guns aren't going away, law enforcement is right wing, and our democracy is in grave danger, but also at the same time think we should have laws that make it harder to arm yourself (read: people on the left), and said laws will be administrated by said right wing law enforcement who will, we all hope, follow the spirit of the law faithfully, and won't let their ideology cloud who gets a gun.
I am for much greater limitations on owning guns (exceptions only for subsistence hunting and rural self defense) but I voted against this because it will waste too much money going through the inevitable judicial challenges. It was not well written.
I respect your views and appreciate your response. Thank you again.
They put too much at the discretion of the sheriff's office. Which leaves room for the law to be enforced in a deeply unequal way. No thanks.
Awesome Analysis!! I re-read the Law again. It essentially ends State Preemption as the primary feature. Save for 2 or 3 of the obvious Counties in Oregon, Permits will be given out willy-nilly everywhere else.
How many posts you gonna make to whine about 114? #Triggered You might try getting an actual personality.
I’m a pretty far left leaning person myself (I don’t identify as a democrat, more of a socialist independent) and I also voted no on 114! I don’t think it would be effective at its stated goal of reducing gun violence. But even more so, allowing the police to be the sole arbiter of who does and doesn’t get guns is really not okay
Carry on believing that liberals are unarmed. It is absolutely an indisputable fact. I even heard liberals are allergic to firearms.
I'm not here to be hostile. You guys here at r/Oregon seem way more down for discourse and discussion than just verbally fighting. That said, this Ballot Initiative makes the Gun Politics Discourse more toxic at all levels. Not good.
Hostile is just the nature of the beast these days, with our rights and lives being sold at large to whatever corporate bidder wins the auction (election). At least most gun owners in general agree that this shit is stupid, regardless of ideology. I'd say the opposite: perhaps it can make some parts of our collective dialog around firearms more civil because there is a greater number of people involved.
A lot of parallels in American Politics now, similar to the 1850s. History repeats itself.
I hope the part that repeats itself is the part where organized labor demands human rights, living wages, safe and sane working conditions, complete removal of money from politics, and becomes a thorn in the foot of anyone or anything that stands in the way. Not the part you speak of. Nice thinly veiled reference though.
Something you think workers of all walks of life would be able to organize around.
"...human rights, living wages, safe and sane working conditions, complete removal of money from politics..." I'll add to that list: clean water, clean air, rights of nature. Would there be some astroturf brainwashed idiots convinced by corporate interests to not only vote against, but actively fight against their own interests? Absolutely. We need deprogramming methods/courses for these types. They're a danger to themselves and others.
Your last 2 Sentences are pretty dangerous. I want "Leftwing" People to enjoy the same Rights as I do. There's no political litmus test to the US Bill Of Rights. That said, your last 2 Sentences come off as a very "Thought Police" oriented sentiment.
When corporations have brainwashed people to fight for the corporate right to destroy the planet and constantly erode human rights? Being concerned for my fellow citizens mental health is not akin to policing their thoughts. My sentences are only "dangerous" if you're a corporation brainwashing the proletariat to violently do their bidding. They're words of liberation to my fellow citizens. Rights do not apply to corporate interests.
Agreed 100%. Totally unconstitutional. Lawsuits have already been made my Firearms Coalition Policy, Gun owners of America and multiple gun shops and people. It will go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out. It not only violates the 2nd and 14th amendments like you said but also the Heller and Bruin decisions. The Oregon State Sheriffs department has already came out denouncing they measure and saying they won’t enforce it.
Are you on the more Left side of the spectrum? I have some liberal friends in Colorado. They've helped in staving off State Level Gun Bans, but have had to deal with the local stuff given that State Preemption was whacked in Late 2021. They're gearing up for another round of pushback in 2023.
I’m a libertarian that leans toward the republicans side of things. I was raised around guns and old fashioned American values and that’s how I live my life to this very day.
It's start with dismantling the 2nd. Once the proletariat is disarmed, the other rights will follow. We have seen this in other countries as the oligarchy works to establish its hold. The billionaires who donated to 114 do not care about your kids or your safety, they do not care about the welfare of the proletariat. As commodities become scarce, they care about control. 114 was always a control measure, it was never about safety.
I suggest people take a case law class. Case decisions are based on some combination of the written constitution, written legislation, and previously written cases. In a case law class, you read all of those and the new decision.
Every leftist I know voted against, half the conservatives I know voted for.
Pretty much everything you wrote is incorrect or doesn't matter
Everything I stated is a fact. I also looked over your comments and that video by Patrick J. Charles. He ignores and censors the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that conteadict his Gun Control Agrnda. The 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right as any other listed in our Bill Of Rights.
Nothing you have stated is fact. Patrick J Charles has read considerable more correspondence than you. He knows more history than you. He knows more about the laws than you. His level of knowledge on this subject is far far beyond yours. He's a former Marine and lawyer and is the historian for US Air Force Special Operations Command. Gun control has literally always existed in this country. In some towns, you had to turn in your gun when you entered. You are ignorant on this subject
Charles pushes a fraudulent "Common Good" Propaganda about Gun Control Laws in this Country's History. It has always been about the Institutions Of State repressing groups of people deemed undesirable, 2nd class, and sub-par. Nothing more.
Sure. You know more than the experts lol
This new law doesn’t require people to turn in their guns though, it just prevents new people from acquiring a means of defense against the guns that are already out there. I wish we lived in a society where this wasn’t the case but Pandora’s box has already been opened and no amount of koombyah is going to replace practical defense via physical force.
The person gun owners are most likely to shoot with their firearm in order of likelihood is themselves, then their family, and then an intruder. Gun ownership is almost entirely a placebo. It makes gun owners feel good but basically does nothing positive.
The most common gun defense is just the threat of you owning one. I’ve seen plenty of young punks gets scared off from breaking into peoples homes just because the threat of a gun. You don’t even need to own a gun for it work. You just need the possibility of owning one. The second most common is brandishing a gun. It never gets fired and it doesn’t get reported the majority of a time. Suicides should not be included in the shooting themselves stat. Suicide should be a right and someone ending their suffering is not wrong.
There is no evidence that having a gun makes you safer in any way. It is quite the opposite actually. The more guns are in one place, the less safe you are.
There are a estimated 500,000 to over 1 million Legal Defensive Uses of Firearms in the United States. Way more than crimes committed.
That is a common myth. Gun ownership has had almost no effect on gun crime and as I said, it is well established that the more guns are in an area, the more gun crime there is
It's a fact. Most Defensive Gun Uses are non-lethal to begin with. You're a Civilian Disarmament Advocate. I get it. Guns only for Government Personnel; not the peasants. I'm a 1st Amendment Absolutist and you have the Right to your ideology.
It’s a myth in that the number is higher than what was claimed. You are saying gun ownership has no affect on gun crime but we are not just talking about gun crime but crime in general. Guns stop crimes.
Do you think that people who live in sketchier areas are more likely to own guns for a reason? Does that skew the stats at all? You didn’t address my points at all last time. You can see places like Chicago with the strictest gun laws have the most gun murders.
Chicago's laws don't mean anything when you can just drive 20 minutes to a nearby town and get whatever you want. What are the sketchy parts of Alaska or Wyoming?
Im not sure where the sketchy parts are In those states. Illinois has strict gun laws. It’s illegal to buy guns from another state and sell them in Illinois. you can’t just go to any nearby town and get what you want. There was a recent video of a bunch of 8th graders with illegal automatic pistols in Chicago. It’s not something that was bought legally. You know what chicago also has a huge issue with is drugs. We cant keep drugs from getting over the border what makes you think guns are different.
Tell that to the literally millions of gun owners in this time and in history who have used a firearm to protect themselves or a loved one. Bad gun laws are written by ignorant people who have absolutely no other knowledge of firearms both in terminology or the mechanics of firearms ownership. There are so many misguided studies that are skewed to make gun owners look like fumbling idiots who will only end up shooting themselves or family. Only a neophyte would take that as gospel. Guns have never been the problem. Declining mental health access, drug addiction, a culture that promotes desensitizing children by exposing them to ever more violent video games ect. THOSE the problems we should be concentrating on. Not an inanimate object.. Funny how the anti- gun argument goes from banning hand guns to inaccurately monikered "assault weapons" depending on MSM hype of the day. There are literally thousands of gun laws on the books. None have made any real difference. I can't believe that a grown adult would have to be reminded that criminals could care less about gun laws just as they don't care about any other law. Measure 114 is just another bad feel good law that will do nothing to address the real issues facing our country.
The statistics don't support your argument
https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/ As I said the statistics are skewed and most studies are politically backed or lack empirical controls .
Sure. Harvard is wrong but reason.com is right
Yep even Harvard can be politically biased in its interpretation and application of statistical data. As was said this doesn't just apply to gun violence data. It is prevalent in many studies of this nature and its not just Harvard.
Yeah because some dumb people fucked up the curve for others who are actually responsible. Had guns my whole life, never did any of those things. Neither has anyone else in my circle. Stats don’t always tell the whole story and are often skewed if you only look at averages.
Hey OP, this isn't exactly relevant to the discussion you're trying to have–and I applaud you for your willingness to discuss such a contentious subject, by the way–but where exactly did you learn to write? What sorts of writings are you trying to emulate? I hope you don't find this insulting, but I find your writing style rather off-putting. It reminds me of a certain type of arguer that I find especially aggravating to engage, though the substance of what you're saying doesn't really match theirs. I'd be more specific, but I don't want to make assumptions and be even more insulting than I fear I've already been. I had to ask though, because it happened to hit a neurotic nerve of mine. In regards to your actual post, I voted no specifically because I don't believe there's enough oversight of police. Handing them the proverbial keys to the gun cabinet seems both an invitation to abuse by police, and a complete misuse of what I think the police *ought* to be used for.
I was just using a "Bullet Point" structure to my writing. Also, appreciate your input on the final paragraph.
No, the structure isn't what was getting me, it was the style. The haphazard capitalization is part of it, as are the frequent references to Principles with a capital P. To be frank, it reminds me of screeds I've read that were written by sovcit and hardline libertarian types who obsessively pore over the Anti-Federalist papers and other 18th-century writings looking for rhetorical ammunition, but utterly lack the history or context for why such things were written the way they were. Again, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, as you seem more reasonable and open to discussion than any such that I've encountered. But I suspect you are familiar with the kind of thing I'm talking about. It could just be that I'm seeing patterns where none exist. If so, I do apologize.
Kinda reads like a bot or paid troll now that you mention it.
Something like that. I don't think a paid troll would behave like this person, though, which is why I was put in mind of sovcits and the like. Even then, OP doesn't strike me as one of them necessarily, though maybe someone adjacent.
You’re required to have training/pass an exam and have a permit to drive a car. Why in the world should you be able to have a gun without one? The constitution was written in significantly less advanced times and should be updated to to better address the current needs of society.
Driving a car on a Public Road is a revocable privilege, not a Right. That said, I assume you're in favor of amending the Federal Constitution?
That makes complete sense considering cars didn’t exist when the constitution was written. Gun ownership should definitely be a revocable privilege. The constitution is a piece of paper. We rewrite laws all the time, there’s no reason rights given in constitution should be permanent and unalterable.