Hard core, "public land in public hands" find the same, "give an inch take a mile", as the 2A crowd... Many means to view, if we're speaking outside the political spectrum.The OVBC did a survey in June on the topic. results below. Interesting read as are the stats. It is easy to say it is party, but the results seem far more nuanced than that. As some people have said here, "hard core" gun owners might want to reevaluate. The "not one inch" approach isn't winning a lot of converts.
Guns and Regulations - Oregon Values and Beliefs Center
We asked Oregonians to share their opinions on gun ownership and regulations, then compared their answers to a national poll.oregonvbc.org
Well happy friggin election Oregon... :(
- Thread starter MarvB
- Start date
Bigjay73
Well-known member
I think most gun owners just want something done. If new laws and regulations were proven to reduce gun crime, I have a hard time believing that the majority of gun owners wouldn't be in favor of such legislation. Unfortunately it feels like the right laws haven't been presented yet and we keep trying the same things over and over, why that is is another topic for debate.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agree. The difference is every acre of public land is a limited and finite resource. Once it is gone, it will be impossible to get back. That said, I think most people have a favorable opinion of net zero (or something close) land swaps. When it comes to gun regs, at national level at least, any new legislation has an expiration date. So it is hard to have faith in legislators who say “I am for this rule and think it will help, but it needs to go away in x years.”
buffybr
Well-known member
I believe that there are already many laws on the books against such crimes as murder and other crimes commited with guns. Obviously these laws do not prevent the bad guys from committing those crimes, so what good do any new laws do other than taking away the freedoms of honest, law abiding Americans?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Even if logical people can see that laws don't make anything safer they still want something to be done to stop mass shootings. We need to provide that something.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sure, but don’t you need laws/process that ensure you are law-abiding American at purchase? I mean, most current laws are the equivalent of the “I’m not a robot” check box. I think that is what the majority of Americans want to work on. Nothing will prevent gun crimes totally. But I don’t see how doing nothing is an option either.
Joe Hulburt
Well-known member
Liberals in Oregon just haven't felt enough pain from their actions yet. Rock bottom is coming but it's going to have to get worse before anything starts getting better...
morley.tyler
Well-known member
I'm one (registered Independent w/ Libertarian tendencies who's lived in Portland for 20 years) . Also- After a pretty basic discussion my wife (who self-identifies as a San Fransisco left wing hippy) voted no. My North Idaho roots run deep.
Lyfter1013
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
- Messages
- 601
Provide something that doesn’t work to make Someone feel good? No I’m good. Look at California’s gun laws and see where other states will Be headed. This give a little so they don’t take a lot I keep hearing is BS. Everytime we give away we don’t get anything in return. And in turn anti 2a’s just push for more Regulation the next time around it doesn’t stop.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
"something to be done to stop mass shootings"
FI460
Well-known member
My partner grew up in the Bay area. She was a no on this. My boss is one of those ivory tower academics from Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was a no. There were a lot of people opposed to this. Just a few more in favor of it unfortunately.
1. If this had gone through legislative committee we would have had he chance to weigh in and craft it. We could have written our representatives and told them OSP needs explicit funding if Oregon is going to implement a system such as this. I'm generally opposed to direct democracy for this reason, but there was little chance that a bill like this made it through the legislature here. The group that pushed this IP through has tried for the last 3 elections to get legislative support each time their signature gathering failed.
2. While I'm not in favor of the passage of this IP we really aren't losing much. 10 round mag limitation, meh. It wont solve anything, but it wont impact anything beyond racking off rounds at the range. We're going to have a slight inconvenience when purchasing new firearms. That's a bummer. But the world is going to keep spinning and I'm going to keep buying guns.
During the next most important election of my life (which interestingly occur at minimum every 4 years these days), which will be in the post IP 114 Oregon, I guarantee I'm going to own more firearms than I owned before the last election.
Lyfter1013
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
- Messages
- 601
This severely limits the handguns you can purchase. Maybe this doesn’t matter to you however living in California and dealing with this as well as the California Safe Handgun list. It very much limits you what you can own.
FI460
Well-known member
I lived in California. I don't expect it to be nearly as bad as the safe handguns registry. Even so, I purchased every handgun I had my eye on in my time there without much issue (besides the FN 5.7 but I couldn't afford that at the time). Just ended up with a 10 round magazine in them.
Sure the selection may be reduced, but I imagine most manufacturers already have 10 round models for the other dozen states that limit mag capacity.
Now you know why the electoral college is in place for Pres elections. Some people just don't get it
The law just passed here in Oregon is stupid and I of course voted against it. It will do nothing to stop gun violence or make anyone safer. But it was never meant to. Like all polarizing issues the original goal of solving a problem has long been discarded and now it is all about the fighting the opposition. That is what this IP was intended to do, punish the opposition. The not giving an inch strategy of the 2A crowd is exactly the same. It's all about the fight and has nothing to do with finding a solution to the problem, and gun violence is a very big problem.
Much of the anti-gun crowd feels that the only way to stop gun violence is to restrict gun ownership. More and more, that view is gaining support. That support will continue to grow as gay people keep getting blown away in nightclubs and little kids are getting their brains splattered all over classrooms. It may be that the only way to stop gun violence is restricting gun ownership. I don't know, but I have yet to hear anyone, pro or anti-gun come up with anything else resembling a solution. I know those are fighting words around here, but what if it's true?
If there is another solution, I know it is going to be up to the pro-gun side to come up with it because the antis have already got their solution. Just saying no to anything the opposition comes up with is ultimately a losing strategy because at some point the question is going to become very black and white. What is more important, unrestricted gun ownership, or the lives of our children?
It's hard for folks to vote against the children.
Much of the anti-gun crowd feels that the only way to stop gun violence is to restrict gun ownership. More and more, that view is gaining support. That support will continue to grow as gay people keep getting blown away in nightclubs and little kids are getting their brains splattered all over classrooms. It may be that the only way to stop gun violence is restricting gun ownership. I don't know, but I have yet to hear anyone, pro or anti-gun come up with anything else resembling a solution. I know those are fighting words around here, but what if it's true?
If there is another solution, I know it is going to be up to the pro-gun side to come up with it because the antis have already got their solution. Just saying no to anything the opposition comes up with is ultimately a losing strategy because at some point the question is going to become very black and white. What is more important, unrestricted gun ownership, or the lives of our children? It's hard for folks to vote against the children.
Nick87
Well-known member
Plenty have been presented, enforced is another story.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Haha, no u simple minded pleb. What you fail to understand is you are using this thing called the "slippery slope fallacy". You see, sophisticated hunters know that some rights must be given up in order for us to keep other rights that are more important to us. Those rights will NOT be negotiable in the future. The idea that someone in the future will propose banning scoped bolt action rifles, or "sniper/assassination rifles" is a preposterous Tucker Carlson talking point. Please turn off all your right wing nonsense.
In all seriousness I'm pretty black pilled on hunting and shooting making it through my kid's lifetimes. My grandchildren might be embarrassed by my murder of animal persons, "wrong side of history" and all that. Oh well, hopefully they'll still care about conservation.
Lyfter1013
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
- Messages
- 601
I’m a simple minded pleb huh. You bring up banning bolt action rifles for hunting do you think that’s what the 2nd amendment was created for? Because it’s not. As for
You slippery slope comment have you seen how Far states are pushing gun regulation? I really doubt you have. Go look
Up the details of some Of the gun laws states have passed. And guess what each year those same states try to push more
Gun control laws
The 2nd amendment has Nothing to do with hunting
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Sorry, I thought I used enough sarcasm quotes to make it obvious I was joking. Satire is notoriously difficult on the internet.
