Oregon State Democrats Introduce Massive Gun Ban In Oregon House

[irishScott]

Yeah, if this passes in its current form I'll eat my right foot.

 

[michal1980]

A rather ironic couple of statements here.

This is "as despicable" as the Iraq War? Well, I don't support it, and I don't support these sorts of bans in general. But it is nowhere near the Iraq War in terms of the lives lost, money wasted and damage done to the country as a whole.

Why wasn't it "time for a little rebellion" in 2003? Oh right -- that was back when you had to support whatever the government did or you were "with the terrists". GOP played that one well.

this is a stupid standard by which to judge laws.

'Its ok we pass this law because the other guys did something as bad or worse before"

Are the democrats going stupid on guns or not?

 

[NoStateofMind]

this is a stupid standard by which to judge laws.

'Its ok we pass this law because the other guys did something as bad or worse before"

Are the democrats going stupid on guns or not?

That tactic is used so much its sickening. It keeps people from actually addressing the issue. I try to make them see it by stating something like "Well Bob robbed a bank and got away with it, does that mean you should too"?

 

[Moonbeam]

A rather ironic couple of statements here.

This is "as despicable" as the Iraq War? Well, I don't support it, and I don't support these sorts of bans in general. But it is nowhere near the Iraq War in terms of the lives lost, money wasted and damage done to the country as a whole.

Why wasn't it "time for a little rebellion" in 2003? Oh right -- that was back when you had to support whatever the government did or you were "with the terrists". GOP played that one well.

Not so, Charles. Hay opposed the Iraq war passionately and while I don't myself oppose gun ownership, I also don't have his very strong reaction to Como the Dictator or understand it nor think Iraq and gun issues are at the same level of cluster fuck, but I try to keep an open mind on both his concerns.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not so, Charles. Hay opposed the Iraq war passionately and while I don't myself oppose gun ownership, I also don't have his very strong reaction to Como the Dictator or understand it nor think Iraq and gun issues are at the same level of cluster fuck, but I try to keep an open mind on both his concerns.

If the OP is correct, these people seek to eliminate the need for warrants and may literally force their way into ones home without one. Judicial review of such violent action is a fundamental necessary protection that it's an act of enormity to eliminate it. How can one overstate the effect on our society by such an evil action? Without doubt the Republicans inflicted themselves on a people who already were suffering, and I never will play apologist for that action, but consider the mindset of those who if allowed, would change our land to one where no one is safe from having their homes invaded. Guns this time, but what will "the greater good" require next?

The excessive abuse of the power of the state to secure it's goals against the people is about as great an evil as can be. Once it decides to ignore the constraints set upon it, then it's a matter of degree of abuse

 

[Ausm]

Another day, another attempt by the liberals to take away people's guns. They should be ashamed of themselves.

<---Recalibrating Hyperbole scale.

 

[waggy]

it just amazes me that people would be willing to write laws that defeat not just one but 2 rights we have.

fucking amazing.

and people are OK WITH IT!

 

[SaurusX]

Is this another "mistake" like the last Oregon bill contemplating warrantless searches and seizures or is this the same bill? It sure seems like the democrats in that state make a lot of "mistakes".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If the OP is correct, these people seek to eliminate the need for warrants and may literally force their way into ones home without one.

Well, he's not.

The only thing in that proposal that is even remotely relevant is this:

(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;

That is not anything remotely like a "warrantless search".

If it did allow warrantless searches, I would be as strongly opposed to that as most people here. But I would still consider the comparison to the Iraq War utterly absurd.

it just amazes me that people would be willing to write laws that defeat not just one but 2 rights we have.

fucking amazing.

and people are OK WITH IT!

It amazes me how many people just take claims posted on the Internet at face value without looking into it themselves. Even people who have been on the Internet over a decade and should know better by now.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I'll go out on a limb and guess these are Portland metro and maybe Eugene districts. If this is what Portland wants then they should enact it at the city level.

It seems like there was a cascade effect. We had smooth sailing for years after the AWB expired, no one talked about gun control. Obama brings it up and now democrats everywhere are rushing to fall on their swords.

The federal constitution trumps local law in this case. The big issue here is the warrantless search. Don't need to be a constitutional scholar like our beloved president to know that this would violate the 4th amendment. And the 2nd amendment doesn't specify what 'arms' we're allowed to have.

 

[FerrelGeek]

<---Recalibrating Hyperbole scale.

Maybe you missed what they did int NY and what some dems want to do in WA?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, he's not.

The only thing in that proposal that is even remotely relevant is ....
If it did allow warrantless searches, I would be as strongly opposed to that as most people here. But I would still consider the comparison to the Iraq War utterly absurd.

If there is probable cause to believe that the law isn't being followed then by all means issue a warrant. If you find a government turning on it's people with blatant disregard to the Constitution to be of less consequence than Iraq, then be prepared to have many more, and don't cry when your first amendment rights are ignored. You'll have effectively asked for it.

 

[Agent11]

Well, he's not.

The only thing in that proposal that is even remotely relevant is this:

That is not anything remotely like a "warrantless search".

If it did allow warrantless searches, I would be as strongly opposed to that as most people here. But I would still consider the comparison to the Iraq War utterly absurd.



It amazes me how many people just take claims posted on the Internet at face value without looking into it themselves. Even people who have been on the Internet over a decade and should know better by now.

Ok lets go through this.

If this was law and an officer knocks on your door and ask to do a search, you say no, then you get arrested.

After you are arrested they search. It makes it law that you comply with searches.

 

[jackstar7]

It's fun how Charles said he opposed this, but people still want to attack him because they have no real opponent in this fight.

 

[actuarial]

That tactic is used so much its sickening. It keeps people from actually addressing the issue. I try to make them see it by stating something like "Well Bob robbed a bank and got away with it, does that mean you should too"?

You mean the tactic of using straw men to attack a post?

CK specifically said he doesn't support the law nor these bans in general. So how was he using the "it's not as bad as" logic to support the law, since he DOESN'T support the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

M, do you remember our conversation about looking at leaves and seeing what they represent? What I see now isn't beauty, it's the malnurishment and mistreatment of something which can be beautiful, but instead is becoming ugly and toxic. It needs care and attention and that's not found.

 

[Moonbeam]

M, do you remember our conversation about looking at leaves and seeing what they represent? What I see now isn't beauty, it's the malnurishment and mistreatment of something which can be beautiful, but instead is becoming ugly and toxic. It needs care and attention and that's not found.

The no illegal search provision in the Constitution is very important and any dictator would want it eliminated. But all I see are a bunch of very worried people who fear their kids are going to be shot and they are perhaps rather desperately looking for ways to keep that from happening and facing nothing, in many cases, but a stone wall from the other side. I do not see a dictator somewhere in all of this trying to use gun laws to subvert or overthrow the constitution. I see frustration, rage, and anger, and I doubt also, if the law were passed that it would be ruled constitutional under inevitable challenge. So while the loss of a constitutional freedom from illegal search would be profoundly evil, I don't think this is either the intention or what the outcome to which this will lead.

I think you probably feel the same frustration as the anti-gun folk do, an inability to solve anything. We are leaves in the breeze and we need to become the wind. This is why I try to suggest positive action, maybe a health care blog, or something to get your ideas out on the playing field.

 

[shadow9d9]

Another day, another attempt by the liberals to take away people's guns. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Democrats aren't liberals.

When you have a society with a ton of mass killings and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to remove guns.

You should be ashamed of your obsession with killing machines...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If there is probable cause to believe that the law isn't being followed then by all means issue a warrant.

So you agree that the "warrantless search" thing is a fabrication?

If you find a government turning on it's people with blatant disregard to the Constitution to be of less consequence than Iraq, then be prepared to have many more, and don't cry when your first amendment rights are ignored. You'll have effectively asked for it.

This is totally fallacious "reasoning". Saying one thing is worse than another doesn't mean you are saying the other thing is okay.

What we got from the "war on terror" was an unconstitutional erosion of rights AND hundreds of billions of dollars wasted AND thousands of lives pissed away for nothing. Where I come from, that is strictly worse than an unconstitutional erosion of rights by itself.

If this was law and an officer knocks on your door and ask to do a search, you say no, then you get arrested.

Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the bill.

After you are arrested they search.

Not mentioned in the bill.

It makes it law that you comply with searches.

Also not mentioned in the bill.

Most jurisdictions have building codes that one is required to follow. Those laws have similar language saying that the work must be inspected. That doesn't magically and hysterically translate into "warrantless searches" any more than this proposal does.

 

[zinfamous]

So which party wants to come into your bedroom again?

that argument is only relevant if you stash your guns in your bedroom.

 

[Lithium381]

Democrats aren't liberals.

When you have a society with a ton of mass killings and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to remove guns.

You should be ashamed of your obsession with killing machines...

When you have a society with a ton of deaths each year and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to remove cars.

When you have a society with a ton of deaths each year and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to remove hammers.

When you have a society with a ton of deaths each year and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to become a nanny state that will protect each and every life.

You should be ashamed of your obsession with killing machines...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The no illegal search provision in the Constitution is very important and any dictator would want it eliminated. But all I see are a bunch of very worried people who fear their kids are going to be shot and they are perhaps rather desperately looking for ways to keep that from happening and facing nothing, in many cases, but a stone wall from the other side. I do not see a dictator somewhere in all of this trying to use gun laws to subvert or overthrow the constitution. I see frustration, rage, and anger, and I doubt also, if the law were passed that it would be ruled constitutional under inevitable challenge. So while the loss of a constitutional freedom from illegal search would be profoundly evil, I don't think this is either the intention or what the outcome to which this will lead.

I think you probably feel the same frustration as the anti-gun folk do, an inability to solve anything. We are leaves in the breeze and we need to become the wind. This is why I try to suggest positive action, maybe a health care blog, or something to get your ideas out on the playing field.

Those are constructive thoughts. My concern is based on the fact that these are far fro the worst of times, and in the past we responded in ways that supported our rights. Certainly that's not always been true, but then when it has there's often been cause for regret. Certainly the interment of Japanese was done with best intentions, with a great fear supporting it, but it offers little comfort to me. I hope such laws if they were to become enacted would be struck down, but those who ought to be stewards ought not succumb to the temptation to use fear and repress liberty, which is what this amounts to. I have never seen such great fear in my lifetime. We are rather cowardly.

 

[Agent11]

Most jurisdictions have building codes that one is required to follow. Those laws have similar language saying that the work must be inspected. That doesn't magically and hysterically translate into "warrantless searches" any more than this proposal does.

I believe as it is worded it could be used to create an environment of warrantless searches, where you have every right to refuse as long as you are willing to pay the consequences... And while you are in jail they will do what they want.

You can refuse to allow a building inspector to do his thing, there will be consequences however.

Recently a woman who didn't want her analog meter replaced with a digital one was arrested for telling the utility workers to take a hike and refusing to allow them access to her property, do you think the bill or city ordinance mandating the upgrade to digital meters spelled out that it would happen in plain english? And guess what, while she was in jail her meter was upgraded.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You mean the tactic of using straw men to attack a post?

CK specifically said he doesn't support the law nor these bans in general. So how was he using the &quot;it's not as bad as&quot; logic to support the law, since he DOESN'T support the law.

What are you blathering about? Nice to see you coming to the rescue though I was addressing the mentality "Well they did it so its ok for us". But go ahead...blast away.....

 

[Triumph]

Democrats aren't liberals.

When you have a society with a ton of mass killings and an obsession with killing machines, it is logical to remove humans.

You should be ashamed of your obsession with killing machines...

FTFY. I agree that we should remove humans from society. By and large, humans are the most prevalent perpetrators of killings, rapes, genocides, holocausts, slavery, torture, and any other number of "inhuman" offenses.