Oregon ballot measure to ban "Assault" Weapons

[StoneHendge]

They have begun circulating the petition in Portland. A friend just posted this on his Facebook page. I could hug him.

I kinda feel bad for the 18 year old girl that just knocked on my door asking me to sign a petition to ban A.R. 15‘s. I asked her if she could identify an AR 15 if I showed her a picture of one, she said “yes” at first and then quietly said “no...” I asked her if she’d ever shot a gun of any kind. She said “no.” I asked her why she thought guns were bad. She said she “didn’t think guns were inherently bad.” So I asked her why she wanted to ban them. ... she looked down at her script and was lost. I thanked her for taking part in the process of voter involvement. And she told me to have a great day. People wake up! The inanimate object is not the problem.

I'd have asked her if she like to see an AR-15 and shoot it in the backyard. Might make her think twice about knocking on strangers doors.

[grayfox]

Japan had problems with edged blades as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

Interesting thing about schools where Libs send their kids... they are typically guarded by armed guards, this is true in the DC area here. this was also true of Obammster's kids.... so I want to see them put their money where their mouths are, and ban all guns guarding their kids, and while they are at it, also get rid of all of their armed security they use, for themselves and for their homes and gated communities. Then I might believe them, maybe. Until that time they are nothing but power-hungry hypocrites. Yes, Hypocrites.

[stanc]

Like an atheist claiming membership of a church but lately wanting to argue the existence of God. If you are not careful you're just going to upset people.

Quite true.

My advice is to accept that this is a gun forum and people come here because they love guns.

Of course.

Not just any guns, the calibre is AR specific so your arguments against owning AR's are anathema.

Irrational comment. I have not argued against owning AR's.

[stanc]

Guys: Aside from the comment about a machete shooting people, done deliberately to entice others into an endless series of arguments, nothing Stan has said is out of order.

Gene, it has never been my intent to spawn endless arguments.

The remark about a machete shooting people was meant to make the same point that you did (in post #34) about knife attacks: It's irrelevant to the issue of mass shootings.

[stanc]

Banning something because it's dangerous is something an out of control government does. Think about smoking and eating.
It is about government control of the people.

Redundant statement. By definition, to govern is to control. That's why we have governments: To control the people.

We want limited government and they want all controlling government.

They want reasonable restrictions, just like the vast majority of gun owners.

The difference between the two sides is in what each considers "reasonable."

[stanc]

I agree Stan, this is why hands and feet kill more people in the US every year than all assault weapons combined.

Again, not relevant to the issue of preventing mass shootings with assault weapons.

[stanc]

Civil disobedience is an American tradition. Worked during the civil rights era when protesters insisted their 14th and 15th amendment rights be respected. Might be useful in the "gun rights era," as well, as protesters insist their 2nd amendment rights also be respected.

How would civil disobedience be used for said purpose?

[Klem]

Irrational comment. I have not argued against owning AR's.

Please be careful...You have implied I am 'irrational' in two posts now. Your constant Devil's Advocate and intransigence is tolerable (although tedious) but please distinguish between arguing the merits, and ad hominem.

[stanc]

It isn't "anti-gun rhetoric" to recognize that the availability of self-loading firearms and high-capacity magazines is what enables mass shootings to be conducted.

Y'all can stick your heads in the sand and delude yourselves into believing the gun is not a factor, but that will neither solve the problem, nor stop anti-gun laws.

Self loading firearms and high capacity magazines have been around a lot longer than this “mass shooting” trend.

The guns have changed very little.

PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED A LOT!

GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!

Guns are not the CAUSE of the problem, but unfortunately they are a significant PART of the problem.

There is a reason that perpetrators of mass shootings use rifles like this...



...instead of rifles like this:

[video=youtube;SeYF06JzVKo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYF06JzVKo[/video]

[stanc]

Please be careful...You have implied I am 'irrational' in two posts now. Your constant Devil's Advocate and intransigence is tolerable (although tedious) but please distinguish between arguing the merits, and ad hominem.

I was quite careful with my words. You said that my "arguments against owning AR's are anathema." That statement is irrational, because I did not argue against owning AR's.

[biodsl]

How would civil disobedience be used for said purpose?

From my perspective, we're a ways off from that right now. IF enough signatures are collected and IF the measure is passed by the voters, and DEPENDING on what legal remedies are available, we have an idea or two. Just not willing to talk about it and show our hand yet. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

[LR1955]

Guys:

Stan is 100% correct when it comes to the capability of a semi automatic firearm that can use a magazine of about any capacity to inflict a huge amount of harm on people in a very short period of time. Absolutely true and unless we as owners of these types of rifles, carbines, and pistols realize this statement is absolutely true, our heads are in the sand. The tool is capable of that type of harm when used by a criminal and or deranged person to commit mayhem and crime. And please, don't go on about how dangerous a knife is compared to one of our AR-S with a C-Mag when it comes to lethality.

What no one here has done is provide any reasonable solutions.

Lets see some reasonable solutions.

LR55

[dammitman]

mass shootings are by title always gonna include a firearm. I see they always include the use of a motor vehicle. I cant find a mass shooting that didn't at some point need to use a motor vehicle early on. maybe starting there is a better way to stop them! oregons ban will not be anything more than a starting point. I sure hope these useless ideas don't get to kentucky

[bj139]

Why should we accept solutions that infringe upon our constitutional rights?
Most average citizens do not shoot so are willing to ban something which will not affect them.
Teaching non-shooters to target shoot will help the cause.

[dammitman]

living in the USA with all its freedoms and rights is also gonna come with risk. there really is no other way to have all the freedoms we have.

[BjornF16]

Guys:

Stan is 100% correct when it comes to the capability of a semi automatic firearm that can use a magazine of about any capacity to inflict a huge amount of harm on people in a very short period of time. Absolutely true and unless we as owners of these types of rifles, carbines, and pistols realize this statement is absolutely true, our heads are in the sand. The tool is capable of that type of harm when used by a criminal and or deranged person to commit mayhem and crime. And please, don't go on about how dangerous a knife is compared to one of our AR-S with a C-Mag when it comes to lethality.

What no one here has done is provide any reasonable solutions.

Lets see some reasonable solutions.

LR55

But that is exactly our point: That there are other methods of mass casualties that are equally deadly. This points to the gun not being the problem; or stated differently, banning a certain type of gun isn't going to make a difference.

Solutions?
1. Institutionalize those who need to be institutionalized;
2. Quit coddling our children
3. Enforce the laws already on the books;
4. Fix NICS in a manner where accurate reporting occurs without unelected bureaucrats making decisions on who is a "Prohibited Person";
5. Place armed security into schools;
6. Build/renovate schools such that all access is tightly controlled;
7. Yank your kids out of public schools (which are nothing more than Marxist re-education camps right now)

I am not willing to "compromise" on semi-auto rifles and "high capacity" magazines. My personal view is that the NFA already violates the 2A. As discussed elsewhere, state constitutional conventions, op-eds by Founding Fathers, personal letters by Founding Fathers indicated that the 2A was:
1. Personal defense
2. State defense (both external security and against internal tyranny)
3. Hunting (this was actually a very limited topic area broached only by a few states)

[bj139]

F16, yes.
The problem is the left does not want any of the problems fixed so they can use them to enact more restrictive laws on everyone.

[montana]

Again, not relevant to the issue of preventing mass shootings with assault weapons.

Guys:

Stan is 100% correct when it comes to the capability of a semi automatic firearm that can use a magazine of about any capacity to inflict a huge amount of harm on people in a very short period of time. Absolutely true and unless we as owners of these types of rifles, carbines, and pistols realize this statement is absolutely true, our heads are in the sand. The tool is capable of that type of harm when used by a criminal and or deranged person to commit mayhem and crime. And please, don't go on about how dangerous a knife is compared to one of our AR-S with a C-Mag when it comes to lethality.

What no one here has done is provide any reasonable solutions.

Lets see some reasonable solutions.

LR55

I disagree Stan,LR55, dysfunctional type personalities will use what ever is readily available to harm others during a rage of uncontrolled anger. Banning the AR-15 using this reasoning is illogical at best. There are over 250,000 deaths every year in the US because of medical malpractice, yet most people will never hesitate to seek medical help when sick or injured. The good out ways the risk logic. There have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century, yet many people wish to ban the very firearms which could help prevent such disasters. Division of power logic.
In 2014, there were 248 murders with all types of rifles,"not just the AR type" in the US from the last records we have from the FBI. Considering mass murderers use other types of weapons and means to commit such acts, banning the AR type rifles is going to achieve very little. If the actual point is to protect our kids, we need to step up security in our schools the way we do other areas of our society like airports, federal buildings, political leaders, etc., instead of leaving them as fish in a barrel for malfunctioning psychopaths.

[bj139]

I am watching the Sunday morning newshows and the message is clear.

"The majority wants weapons banned. You might as well give up your resistance now".

That is what they want. They want us to give up our freedoms by brainwashing us.

I knew what it was before Trump gave it a name, "Fake News".

[Klem]

Montana is right, removing high-power, semi-auto's from a population will not change the mindset of homicidal maniacs. In Florida it might have been a truck mowing down kids congregating outside the school. Or in Las Vegas the nutter owned two light aircraft. He could have loaded one with extra drums of fuel and flown it into the packed concert. Would have likely killed more than he did.

With estimates of 15-million AR15's in the USA a portion of those would be kept by owners in defiance of a compulsory surrender/reimbursement situation. That portion would then be the black market for years to come. The ammunition would still be available because 223 bolt guns and lever actions will never be outlawed in our lifetime (unless you also outlaw popular military calibres like 223 and 308 like in some European countries).

My thoughts are that there are other ways to mitigate mass murders than a blanket ban on a popular type of rifle. That rifle is the quintessential icon of a country's constitutionally-enshrined right to own it. Unfortunately this means that occasionally there will be mass murders using assault rifles as the primary means and this is the cost of individual freedom. The freedom to own one and use it to defend yourself, your family and your local school.

Or you can live in a place like Paris where ownership of assault rifles is heavily restricted to the authorities, but still murderers entered the country with AK's and created chaos at the Bataclan Concert before the Police stopped them. Later, another murderer drove a truck through a crowd in Nice. In London they used hire vans and knives. In Boston it was a pressure cooker filled with powder (3lbs of black powder and 288*M88 fire crackers). Where there's a will there's a way and while removing all assault rifles from the continental USA might make it difficult for those acting on impulse or looking for convenience, it won't stop the pre-meditators. And it will come at a cost to your individual freedom and cultural identity.