The C word has now been said

Ok, you didn't read the bill so let me point a few things out for you. First of all Oregon already does background checks at shops and gun shows. This bill does not try and amend that law to include private sales (impossible to do without a national registry of guns).

Second, it defines an assault rifle (Section 2 (A) as being a semi automatic weapon with a detachable clip and one or more features that are listed. Now lets look at this critically. It says a detachable clip, of what size? Is that 1 round or 1000 rounds? If it has a detachable clip of 1000 rounds and does not have any of the other features is it an assault rifle? Now look at those features, why would any of them suddenly make a semi automatic rifle and assault weapon? They are simply accessories that do not increase how many rounds the rifle will hold or the rate at which it fires. IE, they are "Scary Bad so we must allow them". It also lists rimfire .22's with a tube capacity of more than 10 an assault rifle. The 22 I grew up shooting that is probably in the 60-70 year old range holds more rounds than that. It's suddenly gone from being a gun fun to plink with to an assault weapon? Ever load one of these in a hurry?

The law would suddenly make me a criminal because in Section 2 (B) it defines an assault pistol as a semi automatic with detachable clip of 10 round capacity maximum. But it can have less than 10 rounds but have one of those scary attachements that don't increase fire rate or how many rounds it holds and it's suddenly an assault pistol! Why?

It's just as stupid for shotguns...

Next the law says I can't have a conversion kit. So basically if I have a folding stock in a box sitting in my closet I'm suddenly a criminal. Please explain to me why does a folding stock make a weapon an assault weapon.

The law says I have 120 days to comply or become a criminal. That 22 I was talking about? It belongs to my mom who inherited it from her dad. I'll never inherit it because she'll have to turn it over to the state for it's overly large capacity. Very nice of the state isn't it?

Oh yeah, this doesn't apply to government employees. Guess I could become a state worker and so be exempt, afterall I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

One more scary item in this law. Warrantless search. Police can walk into my house on any day they want to ensure I'm in compliance with the law.

Last thing, no where in here do I see anything that will keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of criminals.

Don't think this will pass? Might not but very well could too, Oregon is a democratically controlled state full of elected officials who practice do as I say not as I do. Yes, many of them would lose their next election but the law would be in place already. Even worse, next election cycle after that they'll run again and likely win because that's how Oregon rolls.

But if you turn on an elected govenerment then you will be classed as a terrorist, an elected government is there because the people wanted it. Nothing to do with being naive, but I do think it is naive to believe that individuals will fight off an elected goverment that the majority supported. When it was enshrined in your constitution I think the government you were fighting wasn't elected by yourselves...

Also I don't regard anything dating around the mid 1700s as necessarily a civilised time, it was now I was refering to, not from history.

People from the rest of the world are looking to the US and wondering why the need for guns now, your history is part of that, but in many other places they have moved on from a violent past and have changed their laws as necessary with regards to weapons. Your history is just that, history.

Darrin that bill is shocking. I sure hope it doesn't pass.

Again, those of you living in rural areas or know people who do that own guns, and are saying that they would "most likely" never have to use it for self defense...

Can you not possibly get it through your heads that it's because criminals KNOW that the people are armed? Again, I live in a terribly remote area, with only 1 officer on duty for THE ENTIRE COUNTY, we have 0 crime. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Why? Because a person would have to be MAD to attempt to rob or inflict harm or even trespass around here with all these "dangerous" people heavily armed. Everyone who wants one for protection, hunting, etc should have access to WHATEVER they want, no matter if it's black, or high capacity, or whatever.
Until we fix our PEOPLE problem, effectively enforce the laws already on the books, this argument is moot.

For those living overseas or have lived in a different country. AGAIN, until you are faced with gangs, highly diverse populations, corrupt governments and mafias bordering your countries, you will never understand. Good for you!

Worried about my kid at school? Nope, they recently enforced new safety measures AND have two men armed at all times. Safe as can be.

Sure, the tragedy at Sandy Hook and alike were at strategic places where the *don't even have words for them* had connections, but look around at the other targets they could have hit. Each place attacked was a *gun free zone*, right next door to places that would have had more victims, yet they were not *gun free*.

The only concession I would make is for background checks at all gun shows. It's the only measure that makes any sense whatsoever.

Double

Clava guns are our protection FROM having to use them, not the other way around. BEING ARMED keeps the government from turning against us.

Our government spends billions arming people all around the world to overturn corrupt governments. If the afflicted people were already armed, do you think there would be a problem? No.

Actually our democratically elected officials frequently go against the majority of the electorate because they "know" what's good for us when we don't. That's quite a nasty bit of thinking from our elected officials but it's definitely there. So far we've either peacefully overcame legislation we don't like or ignored it like it doesn't exist until it personally bites us in the ass.

How do our guns come into play? If some day a nasty bit of legislation comes along we don't like we have the option for an armed uprising and our politicians know that. Without that threat there would be nothing stopping them from doing what they want. Without guns, a president could crown himself king and what could we do about it? Nothing. Our only hope at that point would be hope our military upheld their oath to support the constitution and remove the newly crowned king.

Now, you keep bringing up what can civilians do against the military. Well an unarmed bunch of civilians wouldn't be able to do a lot. But with hundred of milliion of guns available there's a lot civilians can do. There's literally not enough military to go around to stop us. Iraq is the size of CA with ~30 million people and they had more than there handfull. Now take the US with 10x that number of people. Yeah, they quickly took down Iraq's standing army but all those "freedom fighters" never were stamped out.

Clava, do you secretly work for the you.N.? LOL

I think you need to spend less time watching extreme TV and Films because you are believing that they are real. The US is part of the developed world, it has a respected standing in it, its a country where 'money talks' and no government is going to do something so absurd that would totally destroy it economically, it would be financial suicide and it would take generations to recover from such turmoil. Do you honestly think that the rest of the world would just stand by and watch it happen?
I'm sorry but all of this sounds like total nonsense though if I was wanting to suspect any organisation of wanting to take over this country and become a tyrranical dictatorship then I would look no further than the NRA - it is NOT the same as it was 50 years ago.

So much wrong in that post I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say, do you ever pay attention to what is going on in the US and other countries???

Of course I do - I don't live in a bubble and courtesy of my husbands job I also get to travel probably more than a lot of people do.
But you are trying to compare the US with undeveloped third world countries - are you seeing these things happen anywhere else?
The US is a major player in the worlds global economy, its probably the biggest supplier of food, it has a key part in global finance & banking
This isnt the 1700's any more.
The US collapses and the rest of the world stands to go down with it - if you really believe that they would allow that to happen then I think its you who needs to take a closer look at things and how it all links together.
Believe it or not this country does not exist in some isolated bubble cut off from everywhere else any more Something threatens the economy of the US then they would have the rest of the world to deal with as well - not just householders with guns