Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, a new legislative session is starting here and once again we are looking at a fight to preserve our freedoms and rights. With a slight up of increasing some others in different areas.

I wanted to start this thread dedicated to gun rights. However, I know that those are not the only rights and freedoms that are in trouble of being eroded not only on a State level, but also on the Federal as well. So, I decided to open it up to speak out against these actions in the hope that we see each other as allies verses enemies. That we can unit to stand together in preserving our choices for all, rather than remain separated. We have a common interest that we share, so I hope to use this to build on.

I know that this can get sensitive. I ask people to post on their best behavior. My intent here is to start banding together, not furthering a divide. So please post accordingly.

So, I will start.

With the unfortunate victory of gun laws in California, we can expect similar restrictions to be placed in Oregon. This should be stopped and the choice and rights to own guns should remain with the citizen and not the choice of the Government to take. These unreasonable regulations only seek to control others, the extreme majority of whom are not the "supposed target" but will be lumped in to them because of ease. So I do hope fellow Oregonians, as well as others, take note and start standing up.

What we need is reasonable solutions that target the problem. Not ones that impose another view on people. Sometimes this means the solution itself needs to be ditched. Others it means we simply need to implement it differently. But to do this, we need to view our fellow gun owning citizens as equals and not the potential criminals. We need real solutions, not blame and controlling of others.

I don't have specific laws yet. But I will update this when specific legislation comes up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,679 Posts
I feel as an American Citizen that ANY law that infringes on my Constitutionally protected Rights is invalid and will be ignored. Register my firearms? Fat chance of that. Surrender them? OK! I'll give you all of the ammo first...one bullet at a time, then if I'm still alive *not likely* you can do what you want with the guns.

Back before the turn of the Century, California was requiring registration of 'assault weapons'. Oh NO...we don't want to confiscate them...just want to know where they are and who owns them. Sure...we believe you. Then on Jan 1 2000 the edict was put out that all must be turned in and the Gov started shopping around trying to find an Agency to do the enforcement. State Police? Heck no they said...knowing full well that many would object violently to this action. And so it went through all the Agencies with NONE willing to go door to door to enforce what they all believed was an unlawful action. This is good! They need to believe (and rightfully so) that we won't put up with such things without violence that will leave many of them injured or worse.

Here in PA we have a LONG history of rabble-rousing against the Gov...and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Must be the water.:) I can see from my house where George Washington started the French and Indian War....good old George. Hopefully things will start to turn in the direction of Americans with this coming change of Government leadership. Fingers crossed.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Here in PA we have a LONG history of rabble-rousing against the Gov...and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Must be the water.:) I can see from my house where George Washington started the French and Indian War....good old George. Hopefully things will start to turn in the direction of Americans with this coming change of Government leadership. Fingers crossed.
Speaking of good old George, how'd that Whiskey Rebellion work out for ya?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
The big thing with national reciprocity is that responsible gun owners won't have to worry about getting hit with a felony because they accidentally crossed into the wrong state and forgot to put away their concealed weapon.

With my state's concealed carry license I can't carry in two of my neighboring states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
The big thing with national reciprocity is that responsible gun owners won't have to worry about getting hit with a felony because they accidentally crossed into the wrong state and forgot to put away their concealed weapon.

With my state's concealed carry license I can't carry in two of my neighboring states.
At least you can get a concealed carry. I cannot unless I can prove there is a legitimate threat to my life either personally or through business (carrying large amounts of cash) and they evaluate that threat regularly so different people may decide it is not really a threat and take it away one year randomly. I wouldn't actually carry regularly at all but I would like the option to in case I ever felt the need to (traveling through a bad part of Baltimore late one night, for example). With all this in mind, I still think we need reasonable gun laws in place to go along with removing the unreasonable ones. We should all be working towards the same goal of removing guns from people who want to do harm. It is not a simple problem and therefore, not a simple solution but neither arm everyone nor take guns from everyone are good solutions IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
To the OP, you sound like a reasonable individual. Unfortunately, these issues are never decided by reasonable people because the reasonable is never represented. There's only Pro-gun vs Anti-gun, no room in the middle. Yet the only possible and reasonable solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Whenever these topics start its never long before someone promises hot lead for anyone who tries no infringe on their rights. Now that we've checked that box, soon someone will be here to tell us that no one should be allowed to own a firearm of any kind.

Digasi I commend you for doing your part and being vocal. As you can tell, I am far less optimistic that we ever strike an effective balance between the rights of the people and the safety of the public. But I ALWAYS support open dialogue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,679 Posts
Speaking of good old George, how'd that Whiskey Rebellion work out for ya?

Actually....I think it turned out OK in the end with the Whiskey Tax being repealed and all but a couple of the 'militants' being pardoned. This was an entirely different situation though as the Congress was acting within the framework and blessings of the Constitution where the various entities trying to revoke our 2nd Amendment Rights are totally out of bounds and need to be resisted with as much force as possible.

At the very least, the Rebellion woke up the politicians to the fact that the people wouldn't just sit and take anything they wanted to jam down their throats...regardless of it being 'legal' or not. Also note that there was very little bloodshed in the Rebellion and it was more a mass protest than an insurrection. I think President Washington showed good judgement and leadership in his protection of the fledgling Government while at the same time not killing all of his citizens.

Being as the fight to throw off the British overseers was pretty fresh in everyone's minds they didn't even begin to attempt to disarm the population as this would have surely gotten things bloody as heck really fast. Legally passed taxes and restrictions on things outside of the Constitution are one thing....but don't mess with the Bill of Rights. Especially 'sin taxes' where we have the option of not participating if we don't want to pay the tax. That's where they stepped over the line with the ACA making it mandatory for everyone without the option of saying NO!! Hopefully this will be modified to make it more affordable and acceptable to the majority of Americans.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
To the OP, you sound like a reasonable individual. Unfortunately, these issues are never decided by reasonable people because the reasonable is never represented. There's only Pro-gun vs Anti-gun, no room in the middle. Yet the only possible and reasonable solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Whenever these topics start its never long before someone promises hot lead for anyone who tries no infringe on their rights. Now that we've checked that box, soon someone will be here to tell us that no one should be allowed to own a firearm of any kind.

Digasi I commend you for doing your part and being vocal. As you can tell, I am far less optimistic that we ever strike an effective balance between the rights of the people and the safety of the public. But I ALWAYS support open dialogue.
I agree. Talking on both sides we agree on the ultimate goal. Where we differ is just on the solutions to reach that goal. Even in some cases it isn't the solution that we get stuck on, but simply how we implement that solution.

The biggest sticking point in this discussion is control. We humans have a habit of wanting to control what we can't tolerate, what we hate and/or what we fear. This is true with the subject of guns. The more control we want to force because of this will only serve for the need for more resistance.

I feel if we can remove the drive for control it will reduce the need to resist and allow us to actually meet in the middle. It will allow us to change how we implement solutions we agree on to work for everyone. Look for other solutions that work. So so long as one sides answer is control, the other side answer can only be resistance. In that scenario, we all loose.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
On a positive note, here is one gun law that is being brought up in Oregon. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB232

Early in the stage I know. But an example of something good. It calls for asking if firearms are involved for a restraining order and procedure for when the order is given. For some laws are wrong not because of what they want to do, but how they go about it. This ones seems to keep the protection for all parties in place.

Compared to this:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/HB2237

Where there is no protection. This just allows the door to be open for the state to deny a right simply by not giving an answer. While I get the point, this is an example of what they are trying to do is wrong because of how they go about it.

If the state is going to require one to get this permission, then they must be required to give the correct answer. If they can't give an answer, then they loose the right to that requirement. The ideal way is to simply demand the state fix the system. Or at least penalize the state for when it fails its part of the deal. But to leave open a door in which the state can deny a right should not be knowingly or intentionally left open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
To the OP, you sound like a reasonable individual. Unfortunately, these issues are never decided by reasonable people because the reasonable is never represented. There's only Pro-gun vs Anti-gun, no room in the middle. Yet the only possible and reasonable solution lies somewhere in the middle.
We've had lengthy discussions before. While I'm sure that this sounds "reasonable" to you, truthfully, it's not.

A right compromised is a right lost. Simple as that. And, there is no middle ground that be had because moving toward a theoretical middle ground means that the guy on "right" side of the discussion will ALWAYS be on the losing side.

Always.

And, until that is acknowledged, there is really little point to any sort of discussion. There is simply one side saying "you will do this and we will make you do it by force if necessary" and another side deciding whether or not stopping them is worth dying for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,679 Posts
Good point. I often use the analogy of someone coming into your house declaring he was going to rape your wife and daughter....and you offer the compromise of just raping the wife. This makes the Liberal Types go nuts but I think it's about the same thing with Constitutional Rights...no compromise on them is to be given or they will be gone. Once you give up some of your Right, the opposition will never be satisfied with that and then will want you to compromise farther on the remaining portion until it's completely gone. Stand your ground...no compromise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Good point. I often use the analogy of someone coming into your house declaring he was going to rape your wife and daughter....and you offer the compromise of just raping the wife. This makes the Liberal Types go nuts but I think it's about the same thing with Constitutional Rights...no compromise on them is to be given or they will be gone. Once you give up some of your Right, the opposition will never be satisfied with that and then will want you to compromise farther on the remaining portion until it's completely gone. Stand your ground...no compromise.
I agree no compromise on rights, that doesn't mean we can find solutions to our violence problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Good point. I often use the analogy of someone coming into your house declaring he was going to rape your wife and daughter....and you offer the compromise of just raping the wife. This makes the Liberal Types go nuts but I think it's about the same thing with Constitutional Rights...no compromise on them is to be given or they will be gone. Once you give up some of your Right, the opposition will never be satisfied with that and then will want you to compromise farther on the remaining portion until it's completely gone. Stand your ground...no compromise.
I think you will find that those who find this to be a poor analogy will not be limited to liberal types. Simple put, accepting restrictions on gun rights of any kind is not akin to allowing someone to rape your wife. I'll just leave that point alone.

I prefer a more logical and realistic anology. Like what was once a constitutional right to keep slaves. You can insert your reasoning for no compromise on the gun issue with the slave issue back in the day almost verbatim. In forums throughout the south slave owners met and had the "no compromise" rally. But just because they had those rights didn't mean that it was "right."

I'm not intending to say whether gun ownership is right or wrong. Only trying to point out that simply saying "well its my right" is not a sufficient argument for unwillingness to accept change. There are plenty of arguments that work. To me, that one does not.

I get that the idea of being stripped of your rights makes you feel violated, but asked anyone who has been the victim of rape and they will tell you that the two are not comparable. The rape analogy is just a bad one. IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I think you will find that those who find this to be a poor analogy will not be limited to liberal types. Simple put, accepting restrictions on gun rights of any kind is not akin to allowing someone to rape your wife. I'll just leave that point alone.

I prefer a more logical and realistic anology. Like what was once a constitutional right to keep slaves. You can insert your reasoning for no compromise on the gun issue with the slave issue back in the day almost verbatim. In forums throughout the south slave owners met and had the "no compromise" rally. But just because they had those rights didn't mean that it was "right."

I'm not intending to say whether gun ownership is right or wrong. Only trying to point out that simply saying "well its my right" is not a sufficient argument for unwillingness to accept change. There are plenty of arguments that work. To me, that one does not.

I get that the idea of being stripped of your rights makes you feel violated, but asked anyone who has been the victim of rape and they will tell you that the two are not comparable. The rape analogy is just a bad one. IMO
I would agree with you on this if I chose to ignore WHY we have the right to begin with.

Once you come to the realization of why we were given the right and why it still matters, you may still reject the rape analogy, but, for a different reason.

Where the analogy fails is that we aren't, ultimately, being given the compromise of the wife or the daughter. We are, in reality, being told that we are to agree to one now, and the other later.

Which is the part that continues to be missed by "moderates" on this discussion, and has continued to plague this subject on this and other boards for years.

The constitutional crowd, such as myself, have no problem admitting that there are some that shouldn't have a gun. Most of us here have offered ideas to help deal with that. But, we also realize that stripping "those that shouldn't have a gun" of the right isn't the objective on the other side. It's to strip everyone of the right. And, we have seen time and time again that they will NEVER stop until that is achieved.

Government unconstitutionally enacted a ban on faux assault weapons in the 90s. No sooner was the ink dry on the paper than they were looking to expand it, citing loopholes in the law that are big enough to drive a semi through that would allow them to do it.

Listen to the politicians today. "Weapons of war have no place...." Nice talking point until you realize that there are virtually no firearms in existence that were not created for a military purpose, including pretty much all of the most popular hunting weapons.

When you factor in the absolute refusal to consider any and all suggestions that DON'T involve stripping people of their rights, you really get to understand why people such as myself not only say that I will no longer discuss compromise discussions that involve limiting access to anything, but say that we need to start eliminating some of the restrictions that currently exist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I would agree with you on this if I chose to ignore WHY we have the right to begin with.

Once you come to the realization of why we were given the right and why it still matters, you may still reject the rape analogy, but, for a different reason.

Where the analogy fails is that we aren't, ultimately, being given the compromise of the wife or the daughter. We are, in reality, being told that we are to agree to one now, and the other later.

Which is the part that continues to be missed by "moderates" on this discussion, and has continued to plague this subject on this and other boards for years.

The constitutional crowd, such as myself, have no problem admitting that there are some that shouldn't have a gun. Most of us here have offered ideas to help deal with that. But, we also realize that stripping "those that shouldn't have a gun" of the right isn't the objective on the other side. It's to strip everyone of the right. And, we have seen time and time again that they will NEVER stop until that is achieved.

Government unconstitutionally enacted a ban on faux assault weapons in the 90s. No sooner was the ink dry on the paper than they were looking to expand it, citing loopholes in the law that are big enough to drive a semi through that would allow them to do it.

Listen to the politicians today. "Weapons of war have no place...." Nice talking point until you realize that there are virtually no firearms in existence that were not created for a military purpose, including pretty much all of the most popular hunting weapons.

When you factor in the absolute refusal to consider any and all suggestions that DON'T involve stripping people of their rights, you really get to understand why people such as myself not only say that I will no longer discuss compromise discussions that involve limiting access to anything, but say that we need to start eliminating some of the restrictions that currently exist.
When it comes to rights or choice, I agree. There is no compromise. Compromise in this situation will lead to the loss of rights and choice simply because the pro gun control group will always come back and ask for more.

They are like the friend that always asks to borrow money and says it is the last time. You know that tomorrow they will be back asking for more and they will never pay you back. The only way to deal with this is to say no. Like the pro-gun control group comes for taking away rights and choice, we have to say no.

This doesn't mean we do nothing, but just push for solutions that don't involve taking away from others.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top