IFish Fishing Forum banner
581 - 600 of 634 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
Your assertion is correct. I did not do as much due diligence regarding LEV Oregon as I probably should have. I should have been better informed. I did not vote in favor of BM-114. As I have stated many times I have very little trepidation about someone coming to confiscate my guns. I continue to resist hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric about 'they taking away my gun or my gun rights". By the same token I have been watching gun related issues my entire life. Concluding that I have my head in the sand because I disagree with you or don't share the level of concern you have is patently wrong. I completely understand the settled law and the nuances of same. I would have paid much closer attention had I had any fear the boogeyman was seeking to confiscate my weapons. Hyperbole about this type of thing is something I don't react to. Discussion is best when it is fact based, not sensationalized to maximize the fear quotient.

I am currently attempting to get some clarity about the LEV Oregon mission statement. I believe a lot of the fodder for all the anxiety comes from that. In the first part of their message it references military style AR semiautomatics. In the later part it references banning 'semiautomatics'. I tend to believe the second reference was a reference to the first rather than referencing our upland bird and duck/goose semiautos. Perhaps someone can clear that up for me if LEV doesn't get back to me promptly. Obviously attempting to ban all semiautomatics of whatever ilk would be a woefully wrong turn no sportsman of good conscience would ever support. I don't want a ban on AR platform firearms (although we have already endured a 10-yr. ban which didn't change my life one iota).

I do support efforts to put these firearms in the hands of responsible adults, not proven criminals, not psychologically disabled misfits, and not domestic abusers. I don't support the position that we all just shrug our shoulders and say we simply must take the good with the bad and therefore no one has any business saying who gets them (background checks and loopholes). I don't go around barking about 'inalienable rights' or whatever the term is. Firearms are lethal killing machines and I would like to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals as best as we can.

For all those people out there that believe as I do that certain guardrails should be attached to ownership I think the issue tends to be more of a mechanical one. How to go about doing that becomes the issue. For me personally I am willing to offer up some inconvenience if I can contribute to that end. I felt that only parts of BM-114 had any chance of offering that, therefore I did not support it. By the same token I never for one minute felt it had anything to with my constitutional rights. I have the right to possess firearms under our constitution. I am also not an idiot. I fully understand what would constitute incremental erosion of rights, the nibbling if you will. No one has been successful in taking away that basic right.

When I render the whole thing down it doesn't really matter to me anyway. I ignore a lot of the white noise of cries for banning guns, legislation, etc.....I have always had an ironclad personal commitment that I would never surrender my guns to anyone period so a lot of this stuff doesn't get my full attention. Regardless of what goes on my guns aren't going anywhere and I have enough. I don't live in fear. Nor do I look upon my guns as anything other than what they are. They are not a lifestyle I feel the need to advertise with stickers on my truck. They are not a social statement. They are not something I am proud of. They are simply nice, pleasant guns. I get to have them because I am an American. I love to hunt and I can protect myself and my family and my country if need be.

As a side note, nobody can deny that Americans have a pretty big thirst for gun control right now. With every mass shooting coming up or heinous crime that thirst is going to grow. Essentially the gun hard liners that carp about nobody is willing to listen or negotiate or whatever are apparently the minority. The more rigid the stance becomes the more polarized the camps will become. We are living the success of their anti campaigns whether misguided or not. At this point I think responsible collaboration is going to bear a much better fruit than hyperbolic rhetoric. As far as taking shots at me, I think you already know I simply don't care that much about what someone else thinks. I just try to be honest. Having said that I also try to listen pretty good to make sure if I need to make adjustments based upon more information.
Incremental erosion of rights. Ain’t gonna happen overnight.

Background checks already happen. How many must be completed by an individual before a single purchase to leave you satisfied? Honest question.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Probably wouldn't be called that if they didn't resembal military weapons so much. People complain about it then go out and buy another like it, kind of like flipping the rest the bird and saying I can do as I please.
Say what?

Your bolt action rifle looks like a military weapon- because it was! Your pump shotgun, same. Also, your revolver. And your 1911. Is it just a recency bias you’ve got going here?

The AR15 was designed about 75 YEARS AGO.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,210 Posts
Say what?

Your bolt action rifle looks like a military weapon- because it was! Your pump shotgun, same. Also, your revolver. And your 1911. Is it just a recency bias you’ve got going here?

The AR15 was designed about 75 YEARS AGO.
Maybe so, but when someone or persons labeled the AR-15 an assault weapon, the weapon took on another meaning. And, it's still the style of weapon currently used by the military. It wouldn't take to much campaigning to convince enough people that regular citizens shouldn't own military grade weapons. The question is, how do you convince voters otherwise?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,248 Posts
In America, that is the role and jurisdiction of the courts. Not the Attorney General.
It is sad that you believe that, the Attorney General took an oath of office, not to the allegiance of a certain party but to the state and US constitutions, they really should be the first line of defense against any questionable law or ballot measure.

How did we get an opinion on the publics use of navigable rivers that so far has not been over turned in the courts?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
Maybe so, but when someone or persons labeled the AR-15 an assault weapon, the weapon took on another meaning. And, it's still the style of weapon currently used by the military. It wouldn't take to much campaigning to convince enough people that regular citizens shouldn't own military grade weapons. The question is, how do you convince voters otherwise?
What is a military grade weapon? And it seems like the Oregon constitution specifically states citizens should have such firearms. Voter ignorance isn’t sufficient rationale for additional firearm regulation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Thinkin’ we’re about to find out if the Oregon Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Maybe so, but when someone or persons labeled the AR-15 an assault weapon, the weapon took on another meaning. And, it's still the style of weapon currently used by the military. It wouldn't take to much campaigning to convince enough people that regular citizens shouldn't own military grade weapons. The question is, how do you convince voters otherwise?
After WW2/Korea the government set up a program- the CMP, or Civilian Marksmanship Program- to sell the actual “weapons of war” used by our military to fight in those wars. Cheap, too! M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, 1911 pistols..... Springfield rifles.... oh how times have changed when now the problem is how to “convince the citizens”.

Just an observation. You probably already know all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffsbalsiger

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,210 Posts
oh how times have changed when now the problem is how to “convince the citizens”.
Oh, so true.

Look at the biggest metropolitan center in Oregon with an overwhelming number of voters. Shootings are occurring daily as reported in the nightly news. What used to be rare is making people either numb or angry. And if your angry, your likely to do anything to change this. So now there's measure 114.

If gun violence isn't curtailed, how does anyone convince voters to protect gun rights and ownership? I just worry this becomes a losing battle. Yes, times have changed dramatically and peoples opinions, too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,188 Posts
After WW2/Korea the government set up a program- the CMP, or Civilian Marksmanship Program- to sell the actual “weapons of war” used by our military to fight in those wars. Cheap, too! M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, 1911 pistols..... Springfield rifles.... oh how times have changed when now the problem is how to “convince the citizens”.

Just an observation. You probably already know all that.
CMP is still in effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffO

· Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
For those still waiting to get a background check through .. I finally got my gun a couple days ago. I ordered it Nov 11, it arrived in-store and I did the background check on Nov 25. I started with 7000+ people ahead of me "in the CHL queue". Progress through the queue more or less stalled at around 3500 from Dec 9 - Dec 19 then "took off" again. Approval finished on Jan 9. It took 3 days to get the "verification" through. Got my gun home on Jan 12. Nothin' controversial, just a 5 shot revolver.

There are a couple more things I want. Not sure I want to order them and do the long ordeal again. I think I'm going to limit future purchases, unless it is something I very much want and can't get through better sources, to gun stores that use the BATF 3 day rule. There are things I'd go through this again for but it's sure a short list.

I hope ya'll are either through the process or making good progress.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,420 Posts
Portland has an epidemic of "felons in possession of firearms" committing crimes. The six links below are just from the last week! Why aren't the anti-gun advocates protesting this? It is obvious that criminals do not care whether there are gun restrictions or not. It is already illegal for them to possess firearms. But yet more laws are enacted which only restrict the gun rights of law abiding citizens.

This epidemic of felons in possession should be making headline news. Am I the only one seeing this pattern? And it repeats week after week, year after year.

Portland man with 18 prior felonies sentenced for illegally owning a gun

Portland Police arrest three on reckless driving charges; 3 illegal guns seized

Suspect arrested after dangerous high-speed car chase through SE Portland

Suspect in deadly SE Portland shooting arrested on murder charges

Suspect arrested in shooting on Portland's Eastbank Esplanade

1 man, 2 teens arrested after Portland police discover loaded weapons in car.
Another "felon in possession" story in the news today:


If repeat felons were kept locked up, much of the gun violence would end. Felons carrying firearms could care less what Measure 114 or other guns laws require.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
Another "felon in possession" story in the news today:


If repeat felons were kept locked up, much of the gun violence would end. Felons carrying firearms could care less what Measure 114 or other guns laws require.
It appears to be a sawed off, double barrel 12 gauge in the picture. Here's something for the anti-gun crowd to think about. A 3" magnum, 12 gauge shotgun shell holds 15 - '00' buckshot pellets. I'm pretty sure I could pull two triggers in less than a second, spraying 30, .33" diameter lead balls into a crowd of people. On the other hand, it would take about 12 seconds to fire off a 30 round magazine from a semi-automatic rifle. I probably shouldn't have posted this as they'll now come after shotguns.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,217 Posts
ll
Incremental erosion of rights. Ain’t gonna happen overnight.

Background checks already happen. How many must be completed by an individual before a single purchase to leave you satisfied? Honest question.
Yes. An important question. The background checks serve a very linear and narrow purpose. Their purpose is to identify unqualified buyers from the perspective of criminal convictions, domestic violence, and evidence of mental health issues, but not much else. They do strain out a few convicted felons and domestic abusers, but the rest is largely self-disclosure about historic mental or relative drug abuse or addictions. In order to be effective, evaluations would have to be much more comprehensive. The issue then becomes how to do that within the confines of constitutionality and personal liberties.

One example may be.......how does one find and restrict an 18 year old with an obvious history of mental issues or impairment at the level of school, family, society, etc.......but with no criminal record from walking into a gun store, purchasing multiple military grade weapons and ammunition to fulfill some heinous anger or sickness he has. It is definitely not uncommon for multiple people to step forward after the fact and declare how screwed up those individuals were. The question will remain......how?. Absolutely no one wants that person to be anywhere near a firearm. Same for criminals. Meaningful consequences seem to be the only possible deterrent for the criminally inclined. So far it just seems we have been resigned to simply accept the bad with the good in order to avoid stepping on anyone's constitutional toes. I don't have an answer, but society is definitely fully intent on fumbling around with weapon types, configurations, and capabilities in hopes of lessening the impact gun violence and misuse. Sportsmen are resistant because we understand those misadventures don't hit the target, but I will continue to advocate for engagement from our side in hopes of finding more effective solutions that have more potential in hitting the target. To those seeking solutions, our rigidity seems to send a clear message about unwillingness.

IMHO....The pendulum is swinging in the direction of more inconvenience to us without any real probability of solving the problem. As the very powerful societal frustration grows the more numerous and extravagant the attempts will become. We should be ahead of curve, not behind it. To a certain extent the NRA has become somewhat of a feckless dinosaur with a sullied reputation that has largely lost it's power and credibility in this discussion. There are a lot of Americans with their ears closed when it comes to listening to the likes of WLP. Society is currently sitting on much more power and legislation (whether misguided or not) is finding landing zones. We stand to lose more than we imagined if we don't jump onto the solution sides of this issue, but we need to play an intelligent lead role in the discussion about retaining our rights along with our guns. Education is a powerful tool. The rhetoric and resistance has worn real thin. It would be good to remember that everyone wants the same thing.......fewer people subjected to impacts from gun violence.

(As a side note I have initiated several written communications (back and forths) with LEVO trying to better educate myself and to better understand how their minds are working. Later about that).
 
  • Like
Reactions: slinger

· Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
It would be good to remember that everyone wants the same thing.......fewer people subjected to impacts from gun violence.
So what? We’re not talking about the output. We’re talking about the input or function required to achieve desired outcome. Many of those inputs put forth by LEVO require semi-automatic firearms to be removed from private ownership. This is the issue.
 
581 - 600 of 634 Posts
Top