Feeding their Gun Control Agenda

[RX-79G]

I didn't miss it, I didn't believe it. The Constitution is supposed to be lasting protection, so if that can be ignored, why would anything else be sacred?

Everything happens because of a law. CC law isn't ignored, so why would another pro gun law be ignored?

The problem with you is that you've already given up. This SCOTUS does not agree that 2A is not subject to regulation.

 

[RX-79G]

How is asking if there is a precedent on something being an advocate for gun control?

How is asking anything make you an advocate?

 

[Koda]

Guns are a bit different when tyranny rises up, guns are a way to resist. It's why the hard push now days to steal our guns, you won't submit to tyranny if you have a choice not to. So of course any gains the grabbers make they won't give up.

The problem with arguing protection from tyranny is that the majority of gun control laws are passed as a result of criminal violence.

 

[misterarman]

The problem is as I've already explained. When the concessions they gain don't reduce crime, they'll come right back for everything else immediately after. In Oregon, we already have universal background checks and red flag laws, but they they've continued to be unrelenting in their attacks against gun rights from any and every angle. Many (well all of them are, but some are just more obvious than others) of these are grievously unconstitutional (e.g. M110 presumes you are guilty of buying forbidden mags after the ban until you can prove your innocence). The only compromise they could accept is to demand 10 things, get 7 of them, and then come back for the other 3 later.

The problem with discarding "shall not be infringed" is that when one concedes various infringements are completely permissible, what's left to say that any further infringements are unacceptable? It's a bit like the (potentially apocryphal) Oscar Wilde anecdote which concludes with the punchline, "Oh, we know what you are. Now we are simply haggling over the price."

They already have their next bills written before a current one passes so it's
immediately ready to continue taking a little at a time.
Gun control isn't about guns.
ITS ABOUT PEOPLE CONTROL.
And it's harder to control people who have guns and freedom like cars and can easily be locked up in the megacity.

 

[Koda]

The problem with discarding "shall not be infringed" is that when one concedes various infringements are completely permissible, what's left to say that any further infringements are unacceptable?

Im not suggesting discarding "shall not be infringed". Im simply pointing out that using that mantra isnt working, clearly. The problem with this is its well established law that our rights can and will be regulated by laws. To ignore that fact leads us down the wrong rabbit hole, while the antis pass more infringements.

 

[RX-79G]

They already have their next bills written before a current one passes so it's
immediately ready to continue taking a little at a time.
Gun control isn't about guns.
ITS ABOUT PEOPLE CONTROL.
And it's harder to control people who have guns and freedom like cars and can easily be locked up in the megacity.

Repeating this over and over doesn't suggest a solution.

 

[nwslopoke]

The right is not putting any information out. That's the problem.

Complaining that something is your GD right is not an argument - especially when that right isn't going away, but is being restricted. Like all rights are restricted.

That's an interesting point of view. All outlets on the left since the 1994 AWB are still misinforming the public on firearms and their abilities. Nearly three decades of "debating" the subject and some how they still get it wrong? The side who claim how educated they are apparently have zero reading comprehension or memory retention abilities. It's no accident.

Also, you're arguing a right being restricted is okay . That's your right. I'll keep bubbleguming and doing what I can to prevent it.

 

[raftman]

How is asking anything make you an advocate?

How was my question anything but a question?

It was a question. I don't know Oregon.

"I'm just asking questions" is a common refrain amongst hucksters. Not everyone who asks questions is a huckster, of course, but we know you are because you treat the more obvious explanation as something that belongs in "tinfoil hat" territory in contrast to your benefit of the doubt implied by your "question." If you don't know Oregon, why are you inserting yourself into discussions about Oregon law? If you feel there's a better explanation, look it up to see if there's proof.

 

[raftman]

Everything happens because of a law. CC law isn't ignored, so why would another pro gun law be ignored?

…

CC laws absolutely are ignored. There is an ever-growing, ill-defined patchwork of places where one isn't allowed to CC, there are restrictions on what you can carry (e.g. 110/348 stating no loaded 10+ mags in public except at a target range).

 

[Mikej]

Another thread shot to hell by a single troll.

 

[Koda]

Also, you're arguing a right being restricted is okay .

technically I havent seen anywhere where RX has stated restrictions on gun rights are ok...?

 

[RX-79G]

That's an interesting point of view. All outlets on the left since the 1994 AWB are still misinforming the public on firearms and their abilities. Nearly three decades of "debating" the subject and some how they still get it wrong? The side who claim how educated they are apparently have zero reading comprehension or memory retention abilities. It's no accident.

Also, you're arguing a right being restricted is okay . That's your right. I'll keep bubbleguming and doing what I can to prevent it.

How are they being misinformed? That an AR15 with a semiauto binary trigger that can fire at 800rpm isn't the same as an M16?


I didn't say that restricting a right is "okay". That's an opinion. I said every right in BoR has restrictions. That is a fact, and no legal scholar or SCOTUS member will tell you different.

 

[RX-79G]

"I'm just asking questions" is a common refrain amongst hucksters. Not everyone who asks questions is a huckster, of course, but we know you are because you treat the more obvious explanation as something that belongs in "tinfoil hat" territory in contrast to your benefit of the doubt implied by your "question." If you don't know Oregon, why are you inserting yourself into discussions about Oregon law? If you feel there's a better explanation, look it up to see if there's proof.

And labeling everyone you disagree about doctrine with as a heretic is common refrain amongst extremists.



I asked because so many people, like you, don't bother reading the law and presume a conspiracy. Happens over and over and over here. And I was asking if this had EVER happened before.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Indeed.

I believe the real crux of our issue here is that our governmental system is not working well for the current structure of society. The population of the USA switched from mostly rural to mostly urban in the 1920's and the divide has only grown - right alongside our growing pains.

What works governmentally for the megacity isn't going to work for the town with two street lights. Unfortunately, we have a very wonky delineation of rights/responsibilities when things get smaller than the state. Suburbs and urban sprawl further complicate things.

How about this for a compromise hypothetical: all of your gun rights are restored to that of the late 1700's if you live in Baker County. Meanwhile, you can't sell to or transact with anyone in Multnomah County, where guns are completely banned. In fact, should you need to travel to Portland you will have to check your gun at the border's police station or risk imprisonment (or just don't bring it) - because the county by way of Portland has declared itself a gun free zone by vote and that's just the way it is.

Obviously such a thing wouldn't pass legal muster but imagine for a moment that it could - the fight between city/rural for control of the State essentially over.

But since that can't happen, we're left to find solutions to complex problems that work for vast differences of people/cultures.

To me, the "muh GD rights" crowd are about as useful on this topic as PETA's vegans.

We have had the same number of Representatives now, as we did in 1910. Yet the population has more than tripled.

4 Senators were added to the Senate when Hawaii and Alaska became States. But since then, the population of Puerto Rico has grown that it can become a State, and they have no representation in Congress;

And... the House won't consider increasing its size to get a more proportional representation of the population.

I'd say it's less where "most people are" and more "why isn't Congress changing to better fit the population"?

435 Representatives for over 331 million people.

That works out to an average of 760,000+ per Representative.


After 1910, 435 Representatives for 92,228,496 people. That worked out to 212,019 per Representative.

Tell me again, how is keeping Congress small "fair" to the population???

Edit. If we kept the proportional ratio of 1910, we would have had no less than 1,561 Representatives in Congress.

 

[RX-79G]

Tell me again, how is keeping Congress small "fair" to the population???

Asking: Would the House function better with 1600 reps?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Asking: Would the House function better with 1600 reps?

Maybe. Probably would have more Parties than just two. Maybe there'll be more cooperation and less hyperpartisanship shenanigans. At the very least, it could free up more time for the Reps to actually interact with their voters instead of running reelection campaigns and just making media appearances for their 2 year terms.

And it'd make the Electoral College more... distributed/fair. Might need to get rid of the whole "winner takes all" State electoral college format because even with say, 1600+ Electors, if say, California has 150-200 Electors and only 76-101 Electors win then all 150-200 EC votes goes to the party "of majority"?

 

[Longwalkhome]

The problem with arguing protection from tyranny is that the majority of gun control laws are passed as a result of criminal violence.

I can only explain by comparing. Covid was funded by the US government and developed in our labs before it was moved to the CCP lab in Wuhan. When the China flu hit America our government didn't take precautions to stop the spread so it killed a great number of people. All the covid tyranny could have been avoided if the government had not created and spread covid.

The comparing is with crime, Soros DAS let criminals run free creating crime. When the criminals are caught they are not prosecuted but turned loose. Government created more crime by the open borders.

Tyranny is here because most of government are criminals by their actions or inaction. Only way it stops is a new bunch in government. However what can't be changed must be endured.

 

[raftman]

And labeling everyone you disagree about doctrine with as a heretic is common refrain amongst extremists.



I asked because so many people, like you, don't bother reading the law and presume a conspiracy. Happens over and over and over here. And I was asking if this had EVER happened before.

Again, it is worthless to ask, especially framed in a way the implied your explanation is the reasonable one, when you can just look it up and provide evidence one way or the other… unless you're acting in bad faith.

If this were an astronomy forum and someone showed up "just asking questions" by saying "let's take our tinfoil hats off for the moment: what if the world really isn't round? Are there any other objects in the cosmos that aren't round?" Should they be taken seriously as asking good faith questions if they openly admit they've not familiarized themselves with the subject matter and haven't looked up to see if there's evidence for the world being something other than round?

 

[RX-79G]

Again, it is worthless to ask, especially framed in a way the implied your explanation is the reasonable one, when you can just look it up and provide evidence one way or the other… unless you're acting in bad faith.

If this were an astronomy forum and someone showed up "just asking questions" by saying "let's take our tinfoil hats off for the moment: what if the world really isn't round? Are there any other objects in the cosmos that aren't round?" Should they be taken seriously as asking good faith questions if they openly admit they've not familiarized themselves with the subject matter and haven't looked up to see if there's evidence for the world being something other than round?

There is nothing flat earth about asking if Oregon has previously assigned primacy to one regional court. Especially when I have no idea how that is legally described to look it up.


I'm not anti anything. I'm the owner of a new SBR. Quit trying to shut me up with your false accusations.

 

[raftman]

There is nothing flat earth about asking if Oregon has previously assigned primacy to one regional court. Especially when I have no idea how that is legally described to look it up.


I'm not anti anything. I'm the owner of a new SBR. Quit trying to shut me up with your false accusations.

If there's no reason to believe such a thing is the case, why posit, without evidence, that it may be, going so far as to suggest it's actually the more likely explanation?

"I'm a gun owner, but…"