Oregon initiative requires gun owners to surrender assault weapons

[Pop23]

It will be cool they get all of those scary guns from the lawful, responsible owners.
They can still protect their family against an illegal semi auto rifle with a double barrel shotgun!
Morons

All of these proposals, each and every one, is reliant on the criminals adhering to them.

What am I missing?

 

[Rustic]

Good for Oregon!

They can do what they want, states rights and all. It’s foolish to think this will save even one soul...
AR15s are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less

 

[Rustic]

Good for Oregon!

Move to Europe soon

View attachment 183902

Nobody gave away more guns than Hitler...idiot. They got cool looking uniforms too!

Lol
People kill people not firearms, Firemans have no control over people. Most people learn and understand that in grade school… And I feel sorry for you...

 

[Rustic]

So a 10 shot limit or capacity on semi-automatic rifles? I can live with that.

Banning a certain style of rifle? No.

Confiscation? No.

Voluntary buy back program? Sure.

Those buyback programs are a ******* joke, they literally give pennies for the firearms. They are all about giving up rights...

 

[Rustic]

1) A "gun free zone" won’t keep bad people with guns away: The basic problem with a "gun free zone” is that anyone you can't trust with a gun will bring it in anyway while it will cause the people you'd want armed in a dangerous situation to leave their weapons behind. If this concept actually worked, we'd just train all of our soldiers in Jiu-jitsu and then we'd declare everywhere we sent them to be a "gun free zone." Admittedly,

5 Things the Gun Grabbers Apparently Don't Understand

Oregon isn't outlawing guns. Just assault weapons.

Ar15’s are not assault weapons, they are just sporting rifles...

 

[Rustic]

So a 10 shot limit or capacity on semi-automatic rifles? I can live with that.

What good will that do?

Not a damn thing... lol

 

[Rustic]

Military personnel, law enforcement and members of the government could be exempt from the ban.
Well, thats good.. the elite and the guys that wont protect you will still be able to protect themselves. amirite OldLady or what?
Yell yippy for stripping away the peons rights!!

Oh relax, Oregonians can still blast the shit out of each other with shotguns.

I forgot i cant talk to you about this because you are so dishonest about it.
You NEVER comment on the point. Just justify throwing away rights.
You make me sick. We moved from europe to get away from people like you.

? Really? I moved here first and I bet my people were broker and more anarchistic than your people by a long shot.
LOL
My folks "elites." That's a good one.

EXCUSE me for skipping a retarded point raised by a guy who's getting his spittle all over my computer screen. Just stop it, TN.

Then you fell off your family tree because you justify GIVING rights away.
The politicians will still have armed guards but we cant? Leave the protection to the police who dont have to protect you? The same cowards that stood idle while some crazy kid shot up a school? And that doesnt bother you a bit?
Holy ******* shit OL. Im sorry, but i just cant understand that level of ignorance and cowardice. I just cant.

TN, taking those goddamned military style weapons out of civilian hands is not taking away anyone's rights to be armed. Those are inappropriate for civilian use and they are misused in a spectacular way by nutcases that our country won't take steps to keep unarmed. Whatever geniuses at Colt decided to design and sell those AR's ought to burn in hell and I hope they are.
I can understand your argument and I hear where you are coming from. I sometimes think about it fairly seriously. You can call me whatever names you want, but I can't for the life of me see how that ban would violate your rights or keep you from protecting yourself and your family.

You have no idea what assault weapons are, Keep your gibberish to yourself

 

[Rustic]

TN, taking those goddamned military style weapons out of civilian hands is not taking away anyone's rights to be armed. Those are inappropriate for civilian use and they are misused in a spectacular way by nutcases that our country won't take steps to keep unarmed. Whatever geniuses at Colt decided to design and sell those AR's ought to burn in hell and I hope they are.
I can understand your argument and I hear where you are coming from. I sometimes think about it fairly seriously. You can call me whatever names you want, but I can't for the life of me see how that ban would violate your rights or keep you from protecting yourself and your family.

Your trust in government bureaucracy is why you can't see the oppositions position.
Go to Venezuela and speak out against the Dictator....then get back to me as to why CITIZENS NEED TO OWN AR15's and more.

A Dictator WAS NOT allowed under Venezuelas Constitution.
Could never happen in the USA? Neither Could Socialized Health Care or a black President.
China JUST became a dictatorship. MILLIONS are at risk now.
Russia is now a hard line Dictatorship.
What do Venezuela, China and Russia (and North Korea) have in common?

CITIZENS CANNOT OWN WEAPONS CAPABLE OF CHALLENGING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

Sorry. It's a tantalizing argument; I can see my Freedom Fighter genes getting stirred up here, but if I were a gun owner, I could do as much with my hunting rifle or my shotgun as with an AR. That is ALL Oregon is talking about.

Lol
AR15s are just sporting rifles... shit for brains

 

[Rustic]

TN, taking those goddamned military style weapons out of civilian hands is not taking away anyone's rights to be armed. Those are inappropriate for civilian use and they are misused in a spectacular way by nutcases that our country won't take steps to keep unarmed. Whatever geniuses at Colt decided to design and sell those AR's ought to burn in hell and I hope they are.
I can understand your argument and I hear where you are coming from. I sometimes think about it fairly seriously. You can call me whatever names you want, but I can't for the life of me see how that ban would violate your rights or keep you from protecting yourself and your family.

Your trust in government bureaucracy is why you can't see the oppositions position.
Go to Venezuela and speak out against the Dictator....then get back to me as to why CITIZENS NEED TO OWN AR15's and more.

A Dictator WAS NOT allowed under Venezuelas Constitution.
Could never happen in the USA? Neither Could Socialized Health Care or a black President.
China JUST became a dictatorship. MILLIONS are at risk now.
Russia is now a hard line Dictatorship.
What do Venezuela, China and Russia (and North Korea) have in common?

CITIZENS CANNOT OWN WEAPONS CAPABLE OF CHALLENGING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

Sorry. It's a tantalizing argument; I can see my Freedom Fighter genes getting stirred up here, but if I were a gun owner, I could do as much with my hunting rifle or my shotgun as with an AR. That is ALL Oregon is talking about.

The point is the Second isn't about hunting

No, I guess it's not. But the guns used to shoot deer can shoot a soldier, as well.

The “gun” determines what?
What does the cartridge determine?
You really need to educate yourself on the subject because you are ******* ignorant on it

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

KGB is correct. 100%.

However, nowhere in the constitution are assault weapons mandated as being legal. So that does not apply.

Just like states can make laws that make yelling fire in a theater illegal despite the 1st amendment, the supremacy clause does not mean laws can not be passed that have to do with amendments. They can limit the power of amendments.

/-----/ "Just like states can make laws that make yelling fire in a theater illegal " It's not illegal if there really is a fire.

You can yell "Fire!" in a theater with no fire all you want. Only if there are consequences to your action can you be prosecuted.

Under the Constitution, so it is with firearms.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Please Contact Us

Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure Updates.


05.09.18

Last evening at 5pm was the deadline for submitting comments on the ballot title for IP 43, the firearms confiscation measure. This measure would ban not only almost all modern firearms but could potentially even ban some lever action rifles.

Anyone who commented has standing to challenge the ballot title created by the Attorney General in the Oregon Supreme Court.

The Secretary of State is reporting they received over 1000 comments. Typically they receive a dozen or fewer.

The comments can be seen here. Many of you have shared the comments you sent with us. We have seen some very impressive and thorough work and you should all be proud.

Next up as you know, is the same process for IP 44.

This outrageous attack on your rights and common sense would require that your guns be inaccessible and even holds you responsible for crimes and accidents that involve a firearm you owned, for 5 years after you sold it.

Based on the Heller decision it is almost certainly unconstitutional. In Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion :

“The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self defense and is hence unconstitutional.”



Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure Updates. - Oregon Firearms Federation

Unconstitutional.

 

[Rustic]

TN, taking those goddamned military style weapons out of civilian hands is not taking away anyone's rights to be armed. Those are inappropriate for civilian use and they are misused in a spectacular way by nutcases that our country won't take steps to keep unarmed. Whatever geniuses at Colt decided to design and sell those AR's ought to burn in hell and I hope they are.
I can understand your argument and I hear where you are coming from. I sometimes think about it fairly seriously. You can call me whatever names you want, but I can't for the life of me see how that ban would violate your rights or keep you from protecting yourself and your family.

Your trust in government bureaucracy is why you can't see the oppositions position.
Go to Venezuela and speak out against the Dictator....then get back to me as to why CITIZENS NEED TO OWN AR15's and more.

A Dictator WAS NOT allowed under Venezuelas Constitution.
Could never happen in the USA? Neither Could Socialized Health Care or a black President.
China JUST became a dictatorship. MILLIONS are at risk now.
Russia is now a hard line Dictatorship.

What do Venezuela, China and Russia (and North Korea) have in common?

CITIZENS CANNOT OWN WEAPONS CAPABLE OF CHALLENGING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

What do Venezuela, China and Russia (and North Korea) have in common?
Communism, which goes against human nature and is only instituted with brute force against anyone who objects.
Neither Could Socialized Health Care or a black President.
? Socialized health care works in every other civilized country on the planet. It's not something a normal person would feel they need to take up arms against.
So what if a President is black? Was that a sign onto you that this country had gone down the tubes beyond all help? But look who we have now. Nothing lasts forever. Neither does communism, as you are seeing with China, with Russia, with Venezuela and soon with North Korea. Money moves the world, not ideology.

...and socialism sucks ass, history has proven so. It has never worked for the good of the individual... ever

 

[Rustic]

Liberals don't understand, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

BULLSHIT ^^^

It’s true, socialism is all about controlling the individual.... than Eliminating that individualism

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good for Oregon!

Gun registration is awesome!
So when they come to get all the guns, they will have a record for the LAWFUL RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS but we dont need to worry about crazy people and gangsters keeping their ILLEGAL guns hidden. They will turn them in when it happens.
Derp

"When they"? Who are they that are planning to take away your toys?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Please Contact Us

Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure Updates.


05.09.18

Last evening at 5pm was the deadline for submitting comments on the ballot title for IP 43, the firearms confiscation measure. This measure would ban not only almost all modern firearms but could potentially even ban some lever action rifles.

Anyone who commented has standing to challenge the ballot title created by the Attorney General in the Oregon Supreme Court.

The Secretary of State is reporting they received over 1000 comments. Typically they receive a dozen or fewer.

The comments can be seen here. Many of you have shared the comments you sent with us. We have seen some very impressive and thorough work and you should all be proud.

Next up as you know, is the same process for IP 44.

This outrageous attack on your rights and common sense would require that your guns be inaccessible and even holds you responsible for crimes and accidents that involve a firearm you owned, for 5 years after you sold it.

Based on the Heller decision it is almost certainly unconstitutional. In Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion :

“The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self defense and is hence unconstitutional.”



Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure Updates. - Oregon Firearms Federation

Unconstitutional.

yes did you look at the responses to the state

not a lot of people ok with it

 

[LuckyDuck]

KGB is correct. 100%.

However, nowhere in the constitution are assault weapons mandated as being legal. So that does not apply.

Just like states can make laws that make yelling fire in a theater illegal despite the 1st amendment, the supremacy clause does not mean laws can not be passed that have to do with amendments. They can limit the power of amendments.

The only individuals who can own "assault" weapons are those individuals with a "Federal Firearms License," not your average individual.

 

[jon_berzerk]

KGB is correct. 100%.

However, nowhere in the constitution are assault weapons mandated as being legal. So that does not apply.

Just like states can make laws that make yelling fire in a theater illegal despite the 1st amendment, the supremacy clause does not mean laws can not be passed that have to do with amendments. They can limit the power of amendments.

The only individuals who can own "assault" weapons are those individuals with a "Federal Firearms License," not your average individual.

"assault" weapon= no such thing = made up term

 

[airplanemechanic]

"assault" weapon= no such thing = made up term

Not true. We had an "assualt weapons ban" and therein the gov't defined assault weapon.

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

 

[Pop23]

"assault" weapon= no such thing = made up term

Not true. We had an "assualt weapons ban" and therein the gov't defined assault weapon.

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

I find this extremely funny. If you shoot someone with an AR-15 DEFENDING YOUR LIFE, do they then, by default, become a DEFEND WEAPON?

 

[jon_berzerk]

"assault" weapon= no such thing = made up term

Not true. We had an "assualt weapons ban" and therein the gov't defined assault weapon.

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

it is still a made up term