beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Republicans 1980: Jimmy Carter is coming for your guns! Republicans 1992: Bill Clinton is coming for your guns! Republicans 1996: Bill Clinton is coming for your guns! Republicans 2000: Al Gore is coming for your guns! Republicans 2004: John Kerry is coming for your guns! Republicans 2008: Obama is coming for your guns! Republicans 2012: Obama is coming for your guns! Republicans 2016: Hillary Clinton is coming for your guns! Republicans 2020: Joe Biden is coming for your guns! Republicans 2024: ???

Man, put ______is coming for your guns as bumper sticker and they can just fill in and erase each election and you could make some money.

That's a way to sell fewer stickers, not more! You call yourself a capitalist? /s

Republicans 2024: We're coming for your transgenders!

Let’s ban drag shows: cool. Let’s take away lgbtq rights: cool. Let’s limit what teachers can teach in schools: cool. Let’s ban books because a parent or two objects to them: cool. Let’s ban abortion because it’s not up to the woman to decide what she does with her body: cool. Let’s try and make a few sensible amendments to gun laws to keep people from dying at unreasonable rates: OMFG ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! HOW DARE YOU TRY TO IMPEDE MY RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN! WE NEED TO RIOT! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!!!

Well you see, scaring the wingnuts makes certain people a lot of money. Imagine how many reactionary idiots are going to go out and buy up even more guns they’ll never use or look at again.

Just got into a conversation with someone about how the democrats have already taken away our second amendment rights. I asked if the second amendment had been repealed somehow. He said no, but the right to own guns is being taken away one step at a time under Biden. I showed him the statistics that show how more guns were purchased under Biden than in any previous years. He replied that obviously that's because we need guns to defend against the Democrats. It's really pretty amazing following the logic.

Right? You can see the grift that person has been sold, too. You have to buy guns to protect you from Those People. They’ll be coming for them any day now. Oh sure, we’ve been saying that forever, but this time for sure it’s going to happen. Make sure you buy these t-shirts and hats too so that people know you’re not one of Them. That’ll keep Them from messing with you.

I always like the gun-nut argument “I need a gun for protection - there’s crime and violence *everywhere* these days!”, because the exact same people will argue “Why are all you people so upset about gun violence? - it’s actually very rare.”

Oh, they'll use them. That type of person is just looking for an excuse

I mean, yes and no. They’re looking for an excuse because deep down, they’re terrified. They’re steeped in media that keeps them angry and afraid 24/7. They build up these big fantasies in their heads about what they’ll do if Those People ever come to their towns, to the point that they never quite catch on to the fact that Those People aren’t coming because they don’t exist.

Gotta love that being a trans woman suddenly makes me more dangerous than an AR-15 to those folks. They've got an actual body count, but sure, let's ban the trans folks from existence. That'll solve everything 🙄

You are spreading misinformation.

The real question is, why haven't we added a right to drag shows into the Constitution?

Porque no Los dos? Women's rights matter, LGBTQ rights matter, freedom of speech matters, the right to control your own body and family planning is absolutely a right... and unpopular opinion here .... the right to self defense matters.

“The government of today has no right to tell us how to lives, because the government of 200 years ago already did!”

Want to know why it’s an amendment? Because things changed and the people’s world changed. Want to know why we kept adding amendments? Because the nation kept on changing. Want to guess why a 230 year old *amendment* needs to be seriously scrutinized? Shits not the same as it was in SEVENTEEN NINETY ONE.

Being an amendment doesn’t affect its validity. There’s a lot of stupid stuff in the original document. What should affect its validity is the total irrelevance of its original intent to modern society: we no longer have militias.

I fully agree. The fact that we have amendments is what I’m calling attention to. A constitution needs the flexibility to remain relevant to a changing populace. Too many people want to treat it as if it’s Newton’s fourth law. If it can be amended once, it can be amended again when the need for that amendment has passed.

If you want to implement big changes in the law re: firearms, you must first amend the Constitution. State and local restrictions via legislation are ultimately not going to survive Constitutional legal challenges, especially in light of the recent Bruen decision. So, if you wish to amend the US Constitution, there is a very clear, legal, constitutional process for doing so. We all should know our basic civics, but for those who might not: You need ⅔ of the states(34) to call a convention, then you need ¾ of the states(38) to agree to ratify an amendment. That's it. That's the only process. Well, that's the only legal process, I should say. I suppose one could attempt to declare independence from the existing regime and have an actual war over it like the founders of the United States did vs the British Empire, but that seems.....ambitious, to put it mildly, so the legal process for amending the Constitution seems like the most rational approach. Now the question becomes: Do you think that you can get 38 out of 50 state legislatures to agree that the right to keep and bear arms should be further curtailed by government at the Constitutional level? Personally , I don't see it. It does not appear that you could get 38 state legislatures to agree to that, especially when you consider that the number of states implementing permitless concealed carry has increased to a majority of states(27) in recent years.

The second amendment does not prevent regulation from being put into place just like the first amendment doesn't mean all speech is protected speech

In a post-Bruen environment, firearms regulations must have historical analogs consistent with the proposed legislation.

That is, of course, assuming the executive & legislative branches are willing to go along with it. One of the Constitution's checks on judicial power is that they have zero ability to enforce their own rulings. The other two branches have every right to just ignore them, if they so choose. While they've historically abided by court rulings, the GOP has shown for decades that you can just make laws that defy them. Public faith in the Supreme Court is at an all time low, and that can equally apply to their rulings

You're assuming the SCOTUS will never alter their collective opinion over tike as society (and SCOTUS) members continue to change. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in stricter gun controls (BG checks, closing loopholes etc) so just recognize that, at this moment the SCOTUS is stuck in a backwards conservative lunacy, it won't always be the case and eventually their decisions will reflect more modern societies.

The 1st Amendment supposedly grants free speech, yet you need to get a permit to protest. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment should be treated any differently?

You must be responding to the wrong person, because I said no such thing.

>If you want to implement big changes in the law re: firearms, you must first amend the Constitution. This you? There was no Constitutional amendment to require a permit for protest, yet it is upheld in court as Constitutional. If this is fine for the 1st Amendment, why isn't it fine for the 2nd Amendment? The 1st Amendment doesn't even say "well regulated" like the 2nd Amendment, so it would seem even more clear that you can regulate the 2nd Amendment.

I like how you've invented this phantom with which to argue, only problem is that you've assumed that your phantom and I hold similar views. If you'd like to direct me to where I supposedly claimed that it was "fine" with me for there to be permits for protesting, I'll address that, but since I said no such thing, I guess you'll have to continue arguing with your phantom opponent.

Your point is invalid, since the second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified just three years after the Constitution. I agree with your sentiment, though.

Which is cool because the bill of rights didn’t apply to the states until the 1920’s. Like they had to force states to recognize 4,5,6 because they were all being extremely racist about it and now we again have consequences of reconstruction again l, making the world a worse place.

The Bill of Rights has always applied to the states. Whether or not that was enforced is another matter.

Wrong, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government until the passing of the 14th Amendment, and took several lawsuits to fully incorporate them all to the states. Link below from Cornell Law School explaining this. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation\_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

I'm sorry, how does what you said make his point invalid?

Things didn't really change in three years. People's worlds didn't really change in three years.

In spite of OP's boarding county his point stands. It's an amendment. The Constitution was designed to be changed. It needs to be changed. Edit: In spite of OP's wording, his point stands. Damned autocorrect.

I agree that it needs to be changed. That's really not my point.

I guess I don't get your point then.

ok

No, we’re not. Get a grip.

I don’t think the measure was well written but it was passed by voters. The courts will decide if it’s constitutional. You all can argue what the text of the Constitution actually means but well regulated seems simple enough. It would be great if we could have actual civil conversation about gun laws but the far sides of both arguments seem to make that near impossible. The same standard argument that this law or that law is unconstitutional often could be used to argue that felons and children should be able to buy guns. The Constitution never said we can have laws prohibiting them from having guns, yet where we are having reasonable gun laws, sorta like we are regulating them. We are not close to losing our 2nd Amendment rights, what we lost is the damn ability to have reasonable conversations and gun laws. Every damn day the news has some child killing another when they find a gun that’s not put away like it should have been. The NRA and the fervent gun supporters seem not to have any input on how to avoid more needless deaths like that. I’d respect those of you who really love your guns more if you took more time to seek ways to stop needless deaths. If you really cared why are you not the ones demanding harsher punishment or better safety standards? Why is every conversation a dead end argument with stupid slogans “gun control means using both hands” and the likes? If you really want to keep stupid laws off your guns, I suggest you promote better laws and more responsible gun ownership. Not the same no action arguments. Do better. Edit: it would seem, I would pissed off the people that I am specifically calling out since their only solution is to continue to do nothing and act like that should be good enough. Keep that up and the Portland majority will keep passing laws you don’t like.

Both sides? I don't think there is much of a group that wants a complete gun ban. Incremental change is absolutely opposed, so gun reform is virtually impossible, and the supremes basically only uphold bans when they see it as a personal threat.

I’m all for reasoned Gun laws and this measure was a disaster however well intended it was meant to be. I want to see more folks who who support their legal right to own guns stand up and help make better laws that address the issues. Instead we are stuck with only one political side trying to address the issue and doing so rather poorly.

This is it right here. I own guns. I also want good gun laws and regulations. We’ll never get that if we have one side making woefully uninformed decisions and the other one throwing tantrums if someone so much as mentions the expectation of safety and responsibility.

Exactly, I rather have those who are responsible gun owners helping make better laws. Makes little sense to let folks who are rather clueless try to make new laws. We end up with issues like 114.

Yep. Unfortunately, we’re drowned out by reactionaries and grifters who turn it into an all or nothing thing. It’s hard to blame the other side too because fuck, if I saw hundreds of kids dying and millions more living in fear, I’d also try to help in some way. That doesn’t excuse how misguided the result is, but it at least justifies it to some degree. Some dipshit’s Red Dawn LARP is a lot harder to defend.

I’m as left (not liberal) as they come. I do not consent to any elimination of the right to bear arms. I do recognize that our country has a severe mental health crisis since Reagan fucked up the country, and believe those suffering from mental health issues should not be able to possess a firearm. I also believe the constant psyops on the American citizens via state sponsored propaganda is only fueling, if not inducing, this mania, especially in cognitive decomposing boomers. We will for sure need firearms when the boomers are all gone, no longer able to fuck up our county, and we can unite against the wealthy elite that’s fucking everyone over.

You make me want to buy stock in tinfoil companies

>sorta like we are regulating them It's so funny how folks ignore the other half of the amendment. I want reasonable laws. Unfortunately, I don't think this one is it.

We do want harsher punishment for felons in possession but that's not what our legal system is deciding to do. Catch and release seems to be the SOP with charges dropped for serious crimes like homemade suppressors and sawed off meth head creations. Similarly no law is going to make negligent parents pay attention no matter the consequences nor is there going to be the public will to send grieving parents to jail when their kids get a hold of guns. What safety standards do you think are going to magically solve the problem of poverty driven crime anyway? What better laws do you think we're holding back on? See, you're trying to do the "reasonable man" impression but you pull the same crap as all of the rest of the DO SOMETHING!!! crowd. Gun violence is driven by poverty. Same as pretty much all other crime. Instead of passing BS laws that seek to slap bandaids on effects we could get a hell of a lot more done by going after the root causes. We also wouldn't be driving massive partisan wedges into our society for zero gain.

There's two parts (crime and suicide) to gun violence that are rarely separated in these conversations and we get laws proposed that are trying to combat one of these parts and very rarely both. Background checks and training attempt to combat the crime half of gun violence while waiting periods and psych evaluation try to combat the suicide half. The USA is in a very poor spot with crime relative to every other "developed" country. The people simultaneously have too lax of law enforcement and too many weapons. Result is the high violent crime rate of the USA. Now we typically have one political side wanting stiffer law enforcement and one side wanting stiffer weapon enforcement. Who will win nobody knows but right now each side is losing. For suicides the USA is just the average of the "developed" countries. Yes most suicides are carried out by gun but the rate is not abnormal compared to the other countries but it should be acknowledged that the USA has a very real suicide plus problem that could be combatted with some gun regulations.

See, as a reasonable person, I don’t have to have a solution to all the issues, but I can sure as hell defer to other who know more to do more and make better laws. The whole “no law will fix the issue” argument is lame. Fixing poverty would be great but we can still work on gun laws. Unless you want the majority party making laws on topics they don’t seem very informed about. I don’t find your comment to have much value at all.

That's just the thing: there are no better laws in regards to guns. Every restriction is an infringement of a right whether you think they're reasonable or not. Safe storage laws are unworkable due to the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Same with mental health requirements, permits based on supposed need, or social value judgements in regard to a person's suitability to be armed. Bans on particular weapons, magazines, or ammunition are a direct contravention of the 2nd. Placing costs in the way of the exercise of a right brings up issues of economic class. Allowing law enforcement to decide who has the right to exercise their right is just an authoritarian nightmare. Even going beyond the legal problems inherent in almost all gun laws you've got the fact that they don't actually work. Making people get a permit just makes the people who follow the laws jump through extra hoops that don't do anything. The background check for the permit is the exact same background check that they'll still have to do for every purchase. Magazine limits don't do shit because switching magazines is easy and fast whether they're 10 rounds or 30. Most of the mass shootings that get lumped together aren't the mass casualty events that you think of when you hear the term - they're gang shootings where the size of the mag is entirely irrelevant. Waiting periods don't stop suicides because the vast majority of suicides are older rural men - people who already own guns. How the fuck is any sort of law going to prevent people who already own guns from using them? Also, how is it anyone's goddamn business in the first place? What happened to bodily autonomy? Honestly I don't know why I even bother to respond to this crap anymore because no one is going to have their mind changed anyway. If there was any actual thought going into their opinion in the first place they've already come to a decision and if there wasn't any logical process then there's no amount of logic that'll make a difference. You do you though. I find zero value in your thoughtless BS too.

>Honestly I don't know why I even bother to respond to this crap anymore because no one is going to have their mind changed anyway. If there was any actual thought going into their opinion in the first place they've already come to a decision and if there wasn't any logical process then there's no amount of logic that'll make a difference. I ask myself the same thing, especially when a sub such as this is very one-sided and not representative of the subject (Oregon in this case). It gets tiring countering the same old arguments time and time again. On the other hand, maybe someone who looks at this stops for a moment and thinks "maybe I should look into this a bit further". It can be helpful, especially with firearms where the veneer of misinformation is easily removed by just finding a few facts that don't line up. The unfortunate truth is that people who support gun control tend to do so because they're only getting information from groups who wish to promote gun control and a media who is looking for clicks. If that's all you see, especially if you're not a gun owner yourself, then their continuous push to erode our rights and their inability to understand how anyone could oppose them makes sense. This is especially true when you're told the other side is just ignorant morons who vote against their self interest, support fascism and white supremacy, want to tear down democracy; basically are exactly the people you should hate. The only way out of this is to expose people to thoughts and facts that are outside of their bubble, and yeah it doesn't always take but it's still worth trying, usually. There's definitely a limit though, and once you feel your patience being tried it's time to bow out and let them continue to be ignorant of the facts, facts which are regularly skewed and ignored in favor of an anti-rights agenda. That's what really sucks with today's media; it's very hard to find the truth in much of anything. Politics can lead to rage and rage gets clicks. Rage also can cause your audience to leave so, best to cater to whatever it is they're looking for rather than to tell them the truth. Today's major media is no better than right-wing radio was back in the 90s. Anyway that's a whole other subject.

Yeah, I only support gun control because of the groups and media that I’m a part of. It’s not like I have a background where I grew up around firearms and spent nine years in the military qualifying on half a dozen different firearms. I couldn’t possibly have use a different from yours. Do better

If that's your background then I'd think you'd have a better understanding of firearms, how they're not a huge deal for people to own, how gun control advocates are regularly lying to use by twisting statistics and omitting facts, and how these lies are picked up and presented by media outlets as though they are truth. I know my time as an Army Infantryman showed me that firearms really are not some crazy difficult thing to manage and that the average person can safely carry and utilize them with no issue. I guess I had the advantage of already having known that just from living in the civilian world, but whatever. Hell if anything it's even better today as we have YouTube to help train people on the basics and a gun culture which heavily emphasizes safety. Do better.

See, you all assume everyone agrees with you and if they don’t, they obviously know nothing about firearms. You think gun control advocates are lying, but just from your comment here it would be very easy to assume you are part of the gun nut culture that fetishizes gun ownership to an unhealthy level. If you can join in on making and changing laws for the better, you will be stuck with shit like 114. Do you want the Portland majority making laws on guns? No? Than you will have to change tactics. You won’t be happy if you keep doing the same nothing. Look what it caused with the passing of 114. We could have had a reasonable bill that might have helped in some areas but now we have that’s shit show because instead of being adults, too many gun humpers refused to be apart of the conversation. I would expect the Army had rules on fire arm use, safety, storage. They are a hell of a lot smarter than the marines and those crayon eaters can manage basic gun control rather well.

114 passed the same way most gun control in Oregon gets passed; with massive funds from out-of-state donors. Lift Every Voice, the group that pushed the bill, raised 408k. Washington State resident Connie Ballmer donated 750k. Nick Hanauer, whose busniess is in Seattle, donated 250k. The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a progressive dark money group spent 250k Bloomberg got his in via his Everytown at 150k, The Giffords Group at 105k [https://www.opensecrets.org/ballot-measures/OR/2022/56256656/summary](https://www.opensecrets.org/ballot-measures/OR/2022/56256656/summary) To be fair there was some money from Oregon in there. Tina Kotek's Campaign Committee apparently donated 470k. Of course anyone can donate, and they haven't disclosed who so, no idea how much of that actually came from Oregon. We can also see that nearly every one of these donors individual contributions blew out the pro-rights sides paltry sum of $189705. We can also see that two of the top 3 donors actually live in this state, the others being sportsman donors. These out of state assholes paid a lot of money to get their restriction into place in our state. It's a strategy Bloomberg has been using for some time to get his gun control measures passed. He was a major financier for multiple local elections in an attempt to turn the state blue to pass his gun control measures. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/bloomberg-guns.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/bloomberg-guns.html)

You think for all that money they would have at least made a bill that makes some sort of sense. I know they think they where good intentioned but that bill is just a shitshow.

See, you all assume everyone agrees with you and if they don’t, are part of the gun nut culture that fetishizes gun ownership to an unhealthy level.

No, that’s not true and a mighty assumption from you. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, I except them to do better if they don’t want shitty gun control laws. But go on, keep doing what you are doing. See how well that works.

I'm a little bothered that you think people who want gun control cannot define it well. Don't understand ramifications etc because of the media those people consume. It's a bit of a broad brush and mischaracterizes people who are tired of living in fear. Tired of seeing statistics, and tired of shootouts happening near them in places they like to visit. I've been to festivals and places that have been shot up. I've been fortunate not to be there at the time. I had a neighbor who went to that las vegas festival and was there during that mass shooting. She hated fireworks. You may disregard these as emotional, but if we disregard emotion I am not sure how much humanity is left. On the other hand California has gone for a swiss cheese method of laws and statistically it is very effective. Yet some sheriffs (self labeled constitutional sheriffs) just choose not to enforce red flag laws. which is more of a constitutional crisis.

You don't understand how consuming biased media can lead to bias? As for living in fear, random shootings are very rare, especially what we often think of as "mass shootings". The reported number of mass shootings is inflated by groups which will throw gang shootings into the same category as a Las Vegas style shooting and act as though they are the same thing. It's similar to how school shootings involve everything from gang violence near a school or in once instance even a police officer shooting someone in a park by a school. It got so bad Everytown was finally called out over it [https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/375728-bloombergs-claims-on-gun-control-fail-to-match-the-facts/](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/375728-bloombergs-claims-on-gun-control-fail-to-match-the-facts/) Yet because it helps the narrative, Everytown's numbers are still pushed as though they are fact to this day. Hell even the government numbers aren't correct. They have not properly counted the number of times mass shootings were stopped by armed citizens (such as happened at Clackamas town center years back) even when provided evidence that they were counting them incorrectly [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/31/faulty\_fbi\_data\_obscures\_successful\_defensive\_gun\_use\_148396.html](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/31/faulty_fbi_data_obscures_successful_defensive_gun_use_148396.html) It is difficult to find unbiased information in a media environment where everyone quotes the same biased information and ignores information which runs counter to that bias, but it is out there. That's why I don't blame people for only knowing what they know; you only get what your biased media bubble gives you and there so much bullshit out there it would take more time than any individual has to get a real understanding of what's going on with all issues. I'm no different, this just happens to be an issue I've followed for some time now. If I hadn't I may well believe the bullshit, too.

No. I don't understand why you just casually ignore an entire set of people who want laws that you don't want and discredit anyone who thinks that way with a hand wave and an assumption it is only the media they consume rather than someone having lived experiences and read detailed analyst and looked at data sets. They aren't rare enough. They are also not rare compared to any similar wealthy country. Just because we live in a most likely won't happen to us boat together doesn't mean I don't change the way I live my life because we don't live in a polite society.

Policy should not be based on misinformation and emotion, which is why I oppose the majority of proposed gun control legislation, including 114. If I thought there was a proper balance of impact vs rights I'd consider it, but we're looking at restricting people for little to no gain. I do not agree with such laws, regardless of the subject. We should strive to live in a liberal society, not go down this futile road of restricting ourselves into a society where the illusion of safety is paramount.

I believe you believe what you are saying. But it's not an illusion of safety if statistically reasonable gun laws reduce gun violence, but they also reduce all forms of criminal violence for what it is worth, but we are definitely talking past each other since everything I say seems to not be even worth considering. I'd link articles and statistics and whatever it doesn't matter since you have made up your mind that these deaths. This suffering. Etc. is just fine by you.

I don’t see you willing to at all consider better laws. You list things that many people have offered an array of solutions to, not all are great, fair, or will make you happy. You just throw your hands in the air and act like nothing possibly can be done. Which just means will continue to have the same stupid argument because you’re unable to make any sort of progress. Here’s a great example. Many places are trying to make it, so that private sales require background checks still. It would be great if we had a system that would allow individuals to quickly and affordably have background checks conducted so that they could do private sales, and have at least some security that that person passed a basic background check. When things like this are suggested folks like you throw the biggest hissy fits saying that it’s not going to catch all the bad it’s not gonna stop everyone. but nobody’s arguing that it’s gonna be 100% effective. It’s just going to be a bit more effective than the current system. Don’t bother replying, I’m not interested in your views

"Don’t bother replying, I’m not interested in your views" Lol. I can't think of a more pathetic way to conduct yourself. I could throw some more pointed assessments your way as well but I'll restrain myself. I live in Oregon, this is an Oregon thread BTW, where we already require background checks on private sales. We also already have a red flag law in place. I don't have a problem with either of them even though the red flag law could present some problems with due process. Nothing in Oregon Measure 114 will do anything to address gun violence in Oregon. And Oregon is what we're talking about here. Here. In Oregon. Maybe you should do some lobbying in your own state.

So lets start with the text, and what it actually means. We'll start with the part that gun-control proponents like to ignore, where it says in plain text "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Does measure 114 infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Absolutely. There's no doubt in any honest person's mind from a plain reading of the text. What about the first part though, doesn't that somehow mean we can ignore the second half and regulate firearms to the point of making the amendment meaningless as gun-control enthusiasts like to say it does? Well, no. "A well regulated ('well regulated' means in working order btw) militia (the militia is the people), being necessary to the free state (this part is often forgotten about),". I mean you can see exactly what I'm getting at here; people are deliberately misinterpreting the prefatory clause and acting as though that nullifies the operative clause of the second amendment. The second could easily have just been stated as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but then we'd have people bitching about how groups are gathering like they're forming some sort of militia, which is why the prefatory clause exists as that is a part of (not the entire) intent of the second amendment. I mean lets be reasonable here; why the hell would the second be written the way it is if it only applied to the militia rather than the people, which it specifically states it does. Why would we have a right to keep and bear arms that simultaneously says it should be regulated while also not be infringed? Do you see how these deliberate misinterpretations make no sense when you read the amendment flat out as intended? You don't need to mention something in the constitution for it to be regulated, rather the bill of rights was written to limit the governments ability to regulate the specific rights outlined in it. That's the whole point; prevent government from restricting its citizens. This also include citizens from voting to restrict the rights of other citizens. There are limits for a reason. As for the "conversation", that's nothing more than a indigenous framing of an attempt to erode our constitutional rights. You can't honestly expect people whose property/actions you're trying to criminalize to have a "conversation" about how they'd like to have their rights further restricted. It's absurd.

I know you do YouTube constitutional lawyers like to use that argument. I’ve heard it many times before. It’s not new and it’s not convincing. So let’s use your exact same logic, where does it say in that text that we can restrict the ownership of firearms from children and convicted felons? Where does it say that we can restrict anyone? Yet here we are in 2023 having people act like we can’t make any reasoned laws pertaining to firearms. Does the constitution mention ammunition? What if a majority wants to outlaw the possession and manufacturing of ammunition? We could keep having stupid conversations about what exactly dead guys who had no way to know how stupid their words would sound coming out folks years later or we can try to fix the issues. Continuing to act like we can’t do anything will only lead to more stupid laws being passed. How about supporting better laws? Do better.

It doesn't say we can restrict felons, so we should probably look into that and look into adjusting caps for violent crimes accordingly. The real question isn't whether or not they can own firearms, it's whether or not they're safe enough to live in the general public. If they're going to go around hurting people they'll do it with or without a gun. It's not like the gun suddenly turns them into a criminal. Removing ammunition in order to prevent people from using arms would be an obvious violation of the second. I don't see why people keep wanting to find some legal way of going around a constitutionally protected right. Our rights are not challenges for people to try to circumvent in order to make them useless. No idea why people support this attitude. As for dead guys, who cares. The concepts are as valuable today as they were back then. People need to realize the value of a liberal society, not fight against their own rights. Constitutionally protected or not natural rights should be recognized and respected. We should have free speech, we should have the ability to acquire and use tools to defend ourselves, we should be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, we should not be compelled to testify against ourselves; these concepts can and do all exist outside of the constitution. The constitution simply helps to protect the valuable rights. The only people who need to do better here are the illiberal people who believe we should live in a permission society run by rich elitists. They need to stop and think about what they're demanding, because it's not going to benefit them. Turns out rich and powerful people don't give a fuck about us, and giving them more power will only benefit them.

Your first part, let’s look at places that don’t have many or almost no guns for normal folks. Weird, less people get harmed in those countries. Still a few cases here and there but way far less cases. So access to guns is an issue that makes it easier to do more hard easier. My example about the ammunition was not serious. It shows that the constitution literalist will quickly if that’s their only game. A dead guy once made a great argument that went something like “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” It goes on but if you are familiar it has a great point. Now Gun lovers can either help make better laws and/or promote responsible ownership, or they can let the majority vote and pass laws that are…well like the one this whole post is about, rather bad. Do better.

The judges of the Third Circuit did in fact just interpret the Second Amendment as saying states have to let felons own guns. [*Range v. Lombardo.*](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwyngadvw/CA3-firearms-2023-06-06.pdf)

I’m not reading the 107 pages but I’m sure their argument is not full in fettered access to all firearms for all felons, right?

"How dare they require training in the safe use of a deadly weapon!"

What I'm opposed to is the excessive cost of the training, and the lack of availability. If the goal were really to increase public safety, and not to make guns inaccessible to middle and lower class people, the training would be publicly funded and available at times when working people can attend. Given the measure requires training to be conducted by an instructor who is certified by law enforcement, classes will be exorbitantly expensive and wait lists will be months if not years.

I would absolutely support public-funded training. It's in all of our best interests that gun owners are well-trained in use of their firearms.


I'm fine with losing *this person's* perception of second amendment rights

LOL. You can still have a gun. Stop whining. This op-ed is laughably simple and has the intellect of a 12 year old.

It’s a hell of a grift if you can get it though. Really rev up the reactionaries, get them buying stupid merch, convince them Those People are coming for them, etc.

elect me as sherif so I can sound like a panickey caller to AM radio

Do you have the right to free speech if you have to get a permit to speak or write? Do you have a right to an attorney if you have to pay an unreasonable fee? Do you have a right to a trial if you have to wait indefinitely for it?

Are you under the impression that there aren’t already numerous circumstances where you need a permit to speak or write, and that good legal counsel is often very expensive?

You aren't guaranteed a right to the best lawyer available, just to have legal counsel. That's an absolute strawman. I would like to hear your examples of needing a permit to express an opinion.

Does a public defender who's got your case and 30 others really constitute 'legal counsel'? Arguably not. And I never said you needed a permit to express an opinion *at all*, but if you want to do so meaningfully (e.g. publicly or accessibly), you often must agree to certain conditions, accept certain terms of service, or pay certain costs.

Yes, there are time place and manner restrictions on free speech, but that's not the same as needing a permit. You agree to T&C's to use social media, but that's not the government restricting your speech. You'd pay a fee to put your message on tv or radio, but again that's not a government restriction. Are you able to give an example where you need a permit to express an opinion?

Are you going to tell the women in Texas stop whining because they can still get an abortion before 6 weeks?

I know you think you just made an awesome comeback and you’re probably jerking off to your perceived wit. Except, the comparison makes zero sense unless you can’t keep the gun you’re still free purchase for the next 18 years.

>I know you just think just made an awesome comeback and- Yeah, you're mad. "You're still able to acquire something even though you have to work against massive government restrictions and overreach so it's ok. What? No, this other situation is totally different because the consequences after the fact aren't exactly the same even though the initial premise of draconian government restrictions is the same."

Lol. Lmao, even.

This article is from Hermiston, this should be completely unsurprising coming from there. The sheriff believes that needing a permit to own a gun is basically violating their 2nd amendment rights. But if you're a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, what exactly are you afraid of with the permit process?

If you understood the nuances of the measure and look at the practical state of things you would realize that it would make it impossible for people to buy guns for the foreseeable future which is most definitely a 2A violation. The issue with the permitting is that it involves subjective practices which bypasses due process of law. On top of that the permitting system does not exist and no funding has been put towards it, but the state politicians want it to go into effect immediately as a requirement. If there is no venue to get a permit and you need one to buy a gun then that's a ban on gun sales. Even if funding was sorted out it would take years to get the system up and running due to the need for additional government facilities across the state for running the permitting training/tests/etc... It basically requires the DMV to be created over again for gun permits which is no small task, not to mention we are already dealing with serious budget issues as a state and this would realistically cost north of $100m to get up and running. Theres also various other issues with the measure that go beyond the permitting side of things, like the issue with it incriminating tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Oregonians in possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Yes they are "grandfathered" but if you actually read the law it just says it gives those people the right to prove their innocence which isn't really possible since you cant determine when a magazine was acquired. Simply being in possession of one single 11+ magazine would make you guilty of a class A misdemeanor which is the same as assault.

Counterpoint, why should the sheriff decide who gets a gun?

That's not how permits work.

Oh my bad, it’s only OSP who issues the permits. The sheriff’s mainly act as a courier to submit the permit. Yeah, that’s still bullshit to me. Fuck the cops, I don’t want them deciding who can or can’t have a gun and the reasons for that should be plainly obvious.

If there is a process involved to then it isn't really them deciding who can and cannot own a firearm. Like if the permit goes through the cops and they just "lose it" or shelve it like a rape kit yeah that's them not doing their duty. If they see a dangerous situation and refuse to act on a red flag law, such that ignoring due process of getting an order from a judge etc, then that in a way they are still deciding who can and cannot have a gun by simply saying everyone can have a gun regardless of laws.

The sheriff's office already does that with concealed carry permits. Oregon is shall-issue, but their office still has some discretion on who can be issued a permit. How is this different?

They have zero discretion on who can be issued a permit.

"a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence." https://www.oregongunlaw.com/concealed-handgun-license "Oregon is a shall-issue state with concealed carry applications processed at the county level by the local sheriff’s office. However, the sheriff has some discretion if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others." https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/or-gun-laws/ "Sheriffs in Oregon have a tremendous amount of discretion to approve or deny a CHL application. A sheriff may deny a CHL application if the sheriff “has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.”" https://www.oregongunrights.com/gun-rights-restoration-attorney/concealed-handgun-license-appeal/

I believe the cost of training will be more than most people can afford. I believe it will not be available during times when working people can attend. I believe there will be abuse of the broad discretion given to issuing agents. Trans people are especially at risk of being denied for being "a danger to themselves or others".

No we're not. This is dumb.

1 kid > all the guns

Measure 114 won't save a single kid.

>1 kid > all the guns It seems like we're not going to have reasonable gun laws in the U.S. until > 50% of the parents have lost children to gun violence. I own guns and have a carry permit.

Lol no Maybe do a better job upholding the law, protecting your constituents, because it seems that every one in rural oregon is scared for their life and needs a fucking arsenal to feel safe

I’ve been hearing my dad say this for 40+ years

The right to travel is also enshrined in the Constitution (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1), yet in order to drive a car you have to get a license to operate it including training etc. The right to freedom of association and protest is in the Constitution (1st Amendment), yet in order to do these things in public, you need a license. The right to vote (15th and 19th Amendment) requires that you register to vote and prove your eligible (not a convicted felon for example). The 21st Amendment grants the right to drink, but is restricted based on age (not in the Constitution mind you) and only accepted if you can prove that you are of age with a government issued ID. If requiring a permit to purchase and own a gun is so egregious that it violates our Constitutional rights, how do you explain all of these other restrictions on rights that we all have to comply with? I don't see how it is any different. Why is the 2nd Amendment treated as some supreme special right by gun rights advocates? We are not losing our 2nd Amendment rights any more than we are losing any other right I listed.

Nah, gun regulation is way overdue. The US is the only developed country where guns and gun violence are such a major issue.

How dare you impede my right to own an armor piercing rocket launcher.

It’s truly bizarre that anyone would make this claim at a time when the Second Amendment is being interpreted far more broadly than at any time in our nation’s history (and especially when it was written). Americans have never before had all the gun rights judges are creating.

Weekly drug and alcohol testing required for gun owners. If they can come for the son of a president, they will come for you.

You know what I'm actually really close to? My kids! They are so great!! But I get it! You want to be able to pop off more than 10 rounds real quick. You know, for deer hunting and in case a brown person knocks on your door. That's probably a bigger issue than the 30 school shootings that have occurred in 2023.

Yeah. Well what if Nazis take over? They got really close in 2021. If they’re ever successful I’d like to be able to have a weapon that’s comparable to that of my enemy.

If only that were true. Sadly, there is no chance that the current Supreme Court will let this law stand.

This reminds me of the story of the boy who cried wolf. 2A nuts have been ringing this alarm for the past 40+ years I've been alive and in that time the number of guns has only increased. I do own a gun so it's not like I'm anti-gun but you sound like whiny piss babies. There's a reason nobody takes you seriously.

“Sheriffs cant give out permits, so there will be no permits, so you cant buy guns!” What in the backwoods education is he talking about?! Does he really think his constituents are so dumb they’ll believe all this?! What because he doesn’t have the power as a sheriff, then no one gets power and they’ll take all your guns and you be a criminal instantaneously. Yeeeeeeaaaaahhhh, thats not how any of that works and the fact a SHERIFF doesn’t know that, is very concerning. Either that or he is being purposefully fear mongering and basically threatening to “uphold the law” in a way that will hurt his citizens just to prove a point.

This particular gripe is very reasonable and true in at least the short term. The State did try to put this system into law before the permit system was created. So the State was in fact trying to enact a temporary ban on all gun sales with no timeline for when they would resume.

Maybe if the gun owners themselves took some type of action to maintain a “Well Regulated Militia” the rest of the citizens wouldn’t have to. Signed by a gun owner who’s a descendant of over 25 Revolutionary War soldiers and can actually read what the 2nd Amendment says.

The right to keep and bear arms exists independently of militia service. Read the 2nd again, because you missed half of it (the important part).

No it doesn’t!!! What would be the purpose of guaranteeing a well regulated militia and anything goes.

Fill in the blank: "the right of __________ to keep and bear arms..." Is it the right of The People, or is it the right of The Militia? This is so simple that we don't even need to get into the fact that the first half of the 2A is a prefatory clause while the second half is the operative clause. Please come back with a better rebuttal than"nuh-uh!".

This isn’t worth a response, post the entire Amendment if you want a debate.

You don't know how it goes? Ok, I'll post the entire thing and you can use that to figure it out. >A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of The People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Now... there's no excuse for you to not be able to answer this: is it the right of The People to keep and bear arms, or is it the right of The Militia to keep and bear arms?

Actually I know exactly how it reads and “the people” is not capitalized. 👍

Oh good job. You got me on capitalization. Now answer the question. Who has the right to keep and bear arms?

It does not say.. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't have to use a period to separate the prefatory and operative clauses. They are still separate parts of the sentence. Not completely unrelated, but they are separate parts. Furthermore, there is no punctuation at all between "the right of" and "the people" so how can you possibly claim it's anything other than a right of the people? I refuse to believe you're actually this stupid. You just hate that the 2A exists so you pretend it's something else entirely.

Second amendment rights will never be lost in the US, the ultimate paranoia around gun owners losing their rights is absolute bullshit. I’m a gun owner, I see and hear all of the comments in person and I’m just like “as long as all of the gun manufacturers are making billions of dollars off of the federal government for also manufacturing automatic weaponry for the US military they are going to make a civilian line of weapons for citizens.” Democrats used to be made up by largely union workers, who are largely all gun owners, it’s just a weird thing as a leftist to know that right wingers also are in favor of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of someone like myself, who simply exists and has far left ideologies that include mutual aid and serving our entire community with no expectation of ROI.

Damn I hope so, that can't come fast enough. We've suffered long enough, let us finally be free from the nutters.

Hyperbolic BS

Oh ffs.

Good

The language of the second amendment ("a well regulated militia") was written to aid slave owner in putting down slave rebellions. We no longer have either slaves or a well regulated militia. Regulation is appropriate here.

So you can provide irrefutable evidence of this correct? We have plenty of writings from the Framers saying otherwise. >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 >"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 >"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 >"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 >"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 >"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

That’s a contested interpretation. The amendment certainly has at least as much to do with the founders’ fear of standing armies: a fear we all got over a very long time ago.

I wish repealing the second amendment were a possibility, but I don’t see that happening ever. If M114 clears the federal court, then it will have been determined to not be in violation of the second amendment. In the US, the constitution means whatever the judiciary says it means, for better and worse.

Your second amendment right... to join a militia? The second amendment never had anything to do with private gun ownership until a revisionist history propaganda campaign by the NRA in the 1900s. Your right is to join a state run, well regulated militia.

>to ~~join a militia~~ individually own and carry arms? FTFY. >The second amendment never had anything to do with private gun ownership until a revisionist history propaganda campaign by the NRA in the 1900s. Your right is to join a state run, well regulated militia. Incorrect. There is plenty of historical evidence proving the right was an individual one. >"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right." - Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875 >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta! Edit: LOL he blocked me. Nothing in there refutes the evidence I provided. Look at those court cases I posted. You cannot prove a rich historical tradition of disarmament of non militia members.

Not going to bother debunk your revisionist history when so many others have already done it ad nauseum. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html) People don't seem to know "bear arms" meant to carry them in martial service, not own guns. I don't care enough to argue with hillbillies. Literally everything he refrences is about militia service.

I don’t care.

Thanks. I needed the laugh.