Gun control is coming
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
at least quote me correctly. “In category” has a specific meaning.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, you own them and it's OK if you live in Oregon before the law is implemented. After it is implemented, it would make the sale and transfer of high capacity magazines a class A misdemeanor. A person caught doing so would be on par with prostitutes, reckless drivers, and those who menace.
Are you asking me if measure 114 will end criminal activities? No, it does not. This law is about saving lives, not changing people's behavior and attitudes.
xtsho
Well-Known Member
The magazine capacity provision of Oregon Ballot Measure 114 is DOA.
www.thechronicleonline.com
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the money for these ballot measures comes from gun manufacturers. Nothing increases sales more than the possibility of not being able to purchase something in the future.
"Usually people were purchasing one firearm, but now we are seeing people buy 12 to 24 firearms at a time," Lincoln City Electronic Super Store Operator Bruce Polvi told Country Media, Inc. earlier. "A lot of them are thinking that this is shutting it off and so it is a panic situation."
Gun Control is great for gun sales.
Most Viewed / Ballot Measure 114: New ruling issued
There is now another pause on Oregon's controversial Ballot Measure 114.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the money for these ballot measures comes from gun manufacturers. Nothing increases sales more than the possibility of not being able to purchase something in the future.
"Usually people were purchasing one firearm, but now we are seeing people buy 12 to 24 firearms at a time," Lincoln City Electronic Super Store Operator Bruce Polvi told Country Media, Inc. earlier. "A lot of them are thinking that this is shutting it off and so it is a panic situation."
Gun Control is great for gun sales.
bam0813
Well-Known Member
I guess I’m m failing in seeing how it saves lives. If me owning one last week was ok and legal and today I just can’t sell it to you because you must be more dangerous than me? Exactly the new law or any other law does not stop criminal intent ,actions,behavior or attitudes. Trust me i know the law well. Its only new to oregonians. Its a cut and paste of the law I’ve followed for decades. Again my point. You guys go and pass a law to “save lives “ and put a slap on the wrist whore charge on it. Fuckin brilliant
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Actually at least some rights people are born with, because of the nature of their existence. I'm a little hesitant to go into that too deeply, I certainly don't have the right to insist you comprehend what seems incomprehensible to you.
The right of self defense is not dependant upon the whims of other people, we are born with it. Even if bad people decide some other people don't have that right, like people that owned slaves, slaves have and always had, the right to free themselves and to use defensive force to do it if necessary.
I'm sorry you feel that slavery when it was legal was just fine and not violating rights. It was.
So if I tried to stuff something up your ass, without your consent, even if I claimed you had no right to resist, you would still have the right to resist. If I were not only claiming to be your mental superior, but was demonstrating my physical superiority, you would have the right to use a weapon, a stick, a knife, a gun to repel me from violating your consent.
Below is an excerpt from a Voluntaryist post which you may find useful or even a little redundant to the idea I touched on just above. Since you "own" you, you have the right of self determination and self defense.
PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION TEST
In the event someone wishes to critique any of these foundations, the performative contradiction test can be used to demonstrate that a person is being disingenuous about their claims. For example, if someone says there is no such thing as “self-ownership,” you can tell them that you will stab their body wantonly. Most reasonable people will refuse and try to stop you, exercising one of the property rights of “control.” The very nature of this resistance is a performative contradiction because their actions demonstrate that they do exert the psychology of property rights over their body to stop an assailant. They are acting as “self-owners” by resisting the attack. This same process can be applied to any tenet of Voluntaryist property rights foundations to demonstrate inconsistency from critics.
bam0813
Well-Known Member
Funny thing is its most likely being done by the same “ the sky is falling “ types that want them goneThe magazine capacity provision of Oregon Ballot Measure 114 is DOA.
Most Viewed / Ballot Measure 114: New ruling issued
There is now another pause on Oregon's controversial Ballot Measure 114.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the money for these ballot measures comes from gun manufacturers. Nothing increases sales more than the possibility of not being able to purchase something in the future.
"Usually people were purchasing one firearm, but now we are seeing people buy 12 to 24 firearms at a time," Lincoln City Electronic Super Store Operator Bruce Polvi told Country Media, Inc. earlier. "A lot of them are thinking that this is shutting it off and so it is a panic situation."
Gun Control is great for gun sales.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
"I'm sorry Mr. and Mrs Slave, I know you don't want me to sell your kid to another plantation, but you see it would be illegal for you to stop me, so get your ass back picking cotton, you have no right to stop me". Hmmm. That's a little sketchy.
Good people disobey bad laws. since laws are the whims of people who belong to a cult which systemically violates consent at it's foundation.
If a law mirrors that which is right, it's redundant to an already existing right, if it legally violates or restricts that which is right, it should be ignored at the very least. In other words murder is wrong, whether laws say that or not.
I would NOT have reported a runaway slave, and would have helped them to run away had they knocked on my door. You would have obeyed the law and returned them to their master ?
You would have used a gun to hold the slave in place until "the authorities" arrived, gave you your reward and done that until the laws changed?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If people grant rights, I could certainly grant myself the right to use a gun to defend myself then right?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm not responsible for the stupid policies hospitals make. Maybe gay people should withdraw their financial support of people who give them lousy service. I don't think gay people should use a gun to force somebody to serve them though, do you? Wouldn't that be a kind of gun use you'd want to control?
I think you meant "which rights are abrogated with a marriage license". I'd say the right to decline an offer of an unwanted coercion based party (government) from engaging you in a kind of legal contract, when that party is not intended to be party to the agreement you wish to make with somebody else. In other words, consent is violated.
Violating consent is a rights violation, right?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I wasn't clear or you misunderstood. We are in agreement on consent it appears.
Not sure how you would construe I meant otherwise, perhaps add some croutons to the word salad and chew a little slower. No skipping the olives!
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Lets go through what you posted and I'll answer in bold:
-What do you think should be included in bg checks ? Criminal records? Ok sure. Medical records? All or just mental health records if any? Thought it should be obvious that it would be mental health records.
-What a neighbor thinks of me? Wether its an opinion or feeling? Maybe what an employer who you walked out on thinks?Maybe something you’ve said in the past? Acted on or not? Yep, if both my neighbour and former employer say I have shown uncontrollable rage and threatened people, maybe I shouldn't have access to certain firearms. If I have acted on threats I have made in the past, I shouldn't have access to certain firearms for sure.
-What are the virtuous standards/qualifications to own a single shot.22 that i cant find or afford bullets for in your proposed paradise. What are the disqualifiers? Mental illness? Violence? Spoken or actual? Seems to me everyone could be found to be unqualified for something. If you don't believe that someone with a history of mental illness and threatens and/or actually commits acts of violence against others should not be able to posses certain firearms, what would be reasonable in your opinion?
-Why do it slow over time? Why keep alienating and stripping half the country of what they own until people lose their shit and commit horrible acts? So your answer is to just let anyone do anything because they may throw a temper tantrum?
-How long will it take? As long as it takes, have to start somewhere.
-How many people in the meantime? Why don’t they just do it big and get it over once and for all? Roger explained that pretty well
-Dems got the ball right? Proves your not interested in discussion, trying to prevent mass shootings shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Go ahead and play the victim now, the fact that I will need to argue that someone convicted of a mass shooting should not have access to certain firearms reflects more on the person I am debating with.
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
Are they PMags?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
only if it's aimed away from me...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
problem is, it’s an area weapon.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i don't have any problems with most existing weapons, i own two hand guns, a carbine, and a shotgun. i am NOT anti gun...i'm anti stupid bullshit.
background checks should include criminal records, mental health records, and a check for any recent police reports. if you can pass that, then you should be able to buy a gun. that won't stop all psychos, but it can't possibly hurt.
there are teflon coated bullets designed to penetrate police and military grade armor. there is no fucking reason what so ever for any civilian to EVER need that. there is no reason for any civilian to need body armor, except for all the other civilians who own guns...a really viscous circle. i need this because they have that, then they'll need this other, until we all have fucking howitzer on trailers behind our diesel pickups....
and it's not about balls, it's about doing the right thing the right way.
people have those things because they're legal at the moment. if and when they become illegal, decent law abiding citizens shouldn't have any trouble giving them up. if they do have trouble giving them up...they are then criminals, who they bought the weapons to protect themselves from to begin with...argue against the inevitable as much as you want.
the simple facts are the numbers scare people, but close to half of all weapons are owned by a very small percentage of wealthy white rural males...they won't revolt, they have way too much to lose. the only people who might revolt are white trash white supremacist militia members who should never have been allowed to own a fucking sling shot to begin with. no fucking loss if they all give them up out of their cold dead fingers.
there'll be no civil war, just some separate incidents with idiots who can't adapt.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
that is not a good law, work to change it. the only reason a dui should get your weapon confiscated is if you were carrying it with you while intoxicated, which is itself illegal, here, anyway.
i'm not an unreasonable ogre. being stupid enough to drink and drive should earn you a suspended license, but not a confiscation of your weapons.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If that's your point of view (bold above) and if it's true, you've just made a compelling argument not to allow at least some police and soldiers to have guns.
Haven't many police and soldiers blindly obeyed orders under color of law to take part in mass shootings of people or threats of mass shootings?
If they haven't taken active part, they've agreed to, if circumstances develop that they "just have to do their job".
Why would you want THOSE people to have guns? Are you going to advocate to disarm them too?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
and what will you do with them when they're illegal? let them sit in a hidden spot in your house and rust? being caught with one will be a SERIOUS offense. probably a lose your home offense, since you were storing them there.
where will you practice without drawing attention? actually killing someone, even in the act of invading your home, will make you a murderer, on top of getting your home and weapons seized and being charged with owning illegal weapons...
think past your knee jerk reaction...does society give a damn what you want? and i'm not trying to be an asshole, i'm just pointing out obvious things...society is a large brutish animal with little to no concern about the feelings of individual members.
once society accepts the situation, and decides to implement it, then there is no choice but to comply or pay the price, eventually.
suppose you die, and leave your house to your kids, with a cache of illegal weapons hidden in it, that get revealed by repairmen or inspectors...you're kids could still lose your house, and possibly be charged for your weapons...
think ahead...put a pillow under that jerking knee...
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i laid out a possible scenario with no insistence that it will ever happen...you are making blanket statements on behalf of people you've never met...