Oregon Initiative 43 passes first step; complete ban on all modern guns...

[Lohman446]

And look where it has gotten you.

In fairness since the sunset of the Federal AWB and outside of certain states it has not worked out that badly.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

And look where it has gotten you.

Are you suggesting that compromising is a better way to preserve the 2nd Amendment and if so, how?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

IMO what is being described in Oregon is the fault of the 2A hard liners.

You don't blame the people who wrote the initiative?

Originally Posted by koda94

Excuse me? You want us to compromise our constitutional right? How do you compromise with someone who has nothing to give up in return?

There hasnt been a single year go by in Oregon that hasnt included a gun control initiative that state 2A "hardliners" fight, all without any outside funding or help from the NRA.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

The other party does have something to give up. He has the power to take away your constitutional right which he can negotiate away. If you would stop putting him down and respect his power, you could come to a better place for all.

How are less liberal gun laws in Oregon a better place for all? What firearm restriction will make your life better?

Capitulating to the gun control impulse so you look friendlier and in the hope that they will leave you something is a weak position. It simultaneously emboldens your opponent and depends on his mercy.

[rickyrick]

Should this proposal become law, and a law-abiding citizen who possesses one of these newly restricted items wishes to remain law-abiding...

Interesting, and a bit troubling is that they are calling out specifically the people that AREN’T the problem with guns.

[rpenmanparker]

Only if you believe in win-lose transactions. If you believe in win-win transactions, then both parties are winners and must be regarded as strong.

[zukiphile]

Only if you believe in win-lose transactions. If you believe in win-win transactions, then both parties are winners and must be regarded as strong.

Believe in win/lose transactions? I've seen them.

Rpenmanparker, how are less liberal gun laws in Oregon better for all? What firearm restriction will make your life better?

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

Are you suggesting that compromising is a better way to preserve the 2nd Amendment and if so, how?

Hard core gun advocates are in the minority. The NRA has fooled politicians into believing they have inherent power. But their power is not inherent. It is given them by the politicians themselves. You must know that most folks with high NRA voting scores are not really true gun believers. They are opportunists who think they need to comply with the NRA to be re-elected. When they discover that isn’t true, gun advocates will be left with no line of defense. Such politicians would flip on a dime if they thought it would keep them in office. So the NRA fortress is very vulnerable. When you are outnumbered, being besieged, and your fortress is not reliable, does it behoove you to play the hardass? I don’t think so.

If gun advocates adopted the position of protecting RKBA while still promoting the sensible regulation of firearms, they could get crossover appeal and lift their support numbers. Then their position would be much more secure than it is now. Think about it: which is the more reasonable position in the eyes of the majority, reasonable regulation or never, ever the tiniest bit of regulation? The never, ever folks are regarded by the majority as cranks, and that is no foundation on which to build political power.

What is sensible? I swear I don’t know. But the negotiation process yields a result that is as good a definition as any.

[rpenmanparker]

It is not what you or I think. It is what the gun control advocate thinks will make his life better. Just remember that besieged positions occupied by a minority nearly always fall. It is our job to find a way to make the majority happy with controls that we can live with. Until you start talking there is no hope for a good outcome. There is no other long term future.

[rickyrick]

Do you know what the NRA is?
It’s us
It’s legal, and safe gun owners.
It has flaws, but it is us.

[rpenmanparker]

But we are talking about a certain state. You could have said the same thing about slavery. After the Kansas-Missouri agreement and if you ignored the North, it was working pretty well.

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Do you know what the NRA is?
It’s us
It’s legal, and safe gun owners.
It has flaws, but it is us.

Uh, no it isn’t. It is a political machine that uses your money and votes to consolidate its power. You are being duped by Big Gun to believe you run the show. That just ain’t so. As Bob Dylan sung so well, we are just pawns in the game.

Let me give you an analogy. If you talk to a used car dealer you can quickly learn that contrary to what seems to be, selling cars is not the object of the business. The object of the business is to lend money. The cars are just the means to do it. The buyer cares about the car because he needs it to get to work. The dealer only cares about lending money.

Okay now back to guns. The NRA is just like used cars. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NRA officers don’t even shoot guns. Guns are just how they stay rich and in power. Simple, huh?

[zukiphile]

...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

You are being duped by Big Gun....

I admit it. You got me. I completely bought it, but "Big Gun" was too much.

Well done.

[Evan Thomas]

I've deleted a couple of posts; one verged on a personal attack. Don't go there.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Hard core gun advocates are in the minority.

Perhaps in terms of the general population, but what counts in this particular instance is who shows up at the polls.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

The NRA has fooled politicians into believing they have inherent power. But their power is not inherent. It is given them by the politicians themselves.

The NRA has fooled nobody; no non-governmental actor has inherent power. The NRA's power lies with millions of members and sympathetic non-members who contact their elected representatives and VOTE.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

You must know that most folks with high NRA voting scores are not really true gun believers. They are opportunists who think they need to comply with the NRA to be re-elected.

You recognize that this is how our political system works with respect to MOST controversial issues, right?

If a single-issue advocacy organization gets the politicians to vote in its favor, it has done its job; the politicians' personal views are arguably irrelevant.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

If gun advocates adopted the position of protecting RKBA while still promoting the sensible regulation of firearms, they could get crossover appeal and lift their support numbers.

...

Serious and informed gun enthusiasts understand that firearms are heavily regulated RIGHT NOW, yet many of the laws are not seriously enforced, and that many measures touted as "sensible" seem designed to poke lawful enthusiasts in the eye while doing little to address real-world problems. This ballot measure is one such "sensible" proposal.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Think about it: which is the more reasonable position in the eyes of the majority, reasonable regulation or never, ever the tiniest bit of regulation?

Who do you think is seriously espousing "never, ever the tiniest bit of regulation," individual cranks on online gun forums notwithstanding?

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You have this in the incorrect order. The NRA has convinced politicians that they can motivate a large number of voters. The NRA did this by motivating large numbers of voters, which was clever.



You who generally have a dcent handle on what they need in order to be re-elected? Existing officeholders.



Did you almost type "common sense regulation..."?



They did that. Do you need a list?



Good thing no one has tried that, right?



It's difficult to take seriously your position on additional restrictions on arms when you don't actually know what that position is.



You don't know whether you can live with those controls, because you don't know what they are, correct?

As for what additional controls I can live with, I know it isn’t zero. That is for sure.

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by carguychris

Perhaps in terms of the general population, but what counts in this particular instance is who shows up at the polls.

The NRA has fooled nobody; no non-governmental actor has inherent power. The NRA's power lies with millions of members and sympathetic non-members who contact their elected representatives and VOTE.

You recognize that this is how our political system works with respect to MOST controversial issues, right?

If a single-issue advocacy organization gets the politicians to vote in its favor, it has done its job; the politicians' personal views are arguably irrelevant.
...

Serious and informed gun enthusiasts understand that firearms are heavily regulated RIGHT NOW, yet many of the laws are not seriously enforced, and that many measures touted as "sensible" seem designed to poke lawful enthusiasts in the eye while doing little to address real-world problems. This ballot measure is one such "sensible" proposal.

Who do you think is seriously espousing "never, ever the tiniest bit of regulation," individual cranks on online gun forums notwithstanding?

As far as what sensible means, just think sensible to you. At least it is a starting point for a discussion.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

As far as what sensible means, just think sensible to you. At least it is a starting point for a discussion.

You go first. You started it.

I'll wait.

[rickyrick]

There are regulations in place, I’ve answered the necessary questions honestly, I’ve submitted to multiple Background checks, my finger prints are on file. I follow all the rules that I’m supposed to follow. I pay the associated fees. I use all my firearms responsibly and safely. I don’t have violent desires, I don’t commit crimes with firearms. I’ve even had the military training.

Tell me how I’m going to be more dangerous with a 30rd magazine than a ten.

[rpenmanparker]

Supposing there was not one single law regulating gun ownership and use anywhere in the USA. Starting from zero. No siege atmosphere. Would you approve of universal background checks? Every single transaction no matter where it occurred? Including extensive reviews of the buyer’s mental health? And waiting periods long enough to get all the checks and reviews done properly? Registration of every firearm in a federal database? Would you approve of the requirement to have guns locked away when unattended?

In the absence of attacks on assault rifle ownership and the like, is anything I have proposed above not reasonable? Does any of it represent an attempt to take away our guns?

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by carguychris

You go first. You started it.

I'll wait.

See just above.

[rickyrick]

I can’t easily own an assault rifle in the United States. They are an NFA item and prohibitively expensive.

[rickyrick]

What civil right are you going to submit to an extensive mental health evaluation in order to exercise?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Supposing there was not one single law regulating gun ownership and use anywhere in the USA. Starting from zero. No siege atmosphere. Would you approve of universal background checks? Every single transaction no matter where it occurred? Including extensive reviews of the buyer’s mental health? And waiting periods long enough to get all the checks and reviews done properly? Registration of every firearm in a federal database? Would you approve of the requirement to have guns locked away when unattended?

In the absence of attacks on assault rifle ownership and the like, is anything I have proposed above not reasonable?

In a word -- no, most of it isn't reasonable.

Very little of this is "reasonable" to people who take the Constitution seriously, and I'm not just referring to the Second Amendment when I say this. Most of what you've enumerated here is based on two assumptions. First, that it is possible to identify people who "shouldn't" have guns before they've actually committed a crime, and second, that it's OK to deprive people of their rights -- dictate what they do in their own homes, track what personal property they own, and investigate them in some very intrusive ways -- when they are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

I think most of us, although by no means all, support background checks for sales involving federally licensed dealers, at least to the extent that they identify people who have been convicted of crimes or have otherwise been subjected to some sort of due process which has determined that they're mentally or emotionally unfit. In the absence of such due process, there is no justification for depriving people of the right to privacy or the right to own what property they choose.

[rickyrick]

Evan, that’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say in the last few responses, thanks for putting it together so well.