-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Oregon governor signs gun confiscation bill into law
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
There's that "common sense" again.
"SB 719 is a common-sense bill that will empower families and law enforcement officers to take action to potentially prevent tragedies before they happen,” said Lisa Reynolds with Moms Demand Action in a statement. “That law will help save lives."
No lady, no it definitely will not.
If someone is too dangerous to own guns, they are too dangerous to own a car or any sharp edge instrument. In fact, they are too dangerous to be anywhere but a nut house. But that requires a court order.
This stupid law doesn't require a finding by a court and medical professionals that a person is a danger to himself or others.
This stupid law doesn't require a finding by a court and medical professionals that a person is a danger to himself or others.
dhuze
NES Member
Why do you hate children?
Garys
NES Member
It's odd how the left is worried that strict enforcement of immigration laws will cause people not to seek medical care because they're afraid they might get deported, but has no problem with signing a gun confiscation bill that is absolutely going to ensure that people will avoid mental health care because they're afraid that they will lose their 2A rights.
Of course it will, but it will be painfully convenient for the moonbats, because most of those people will suffer in silence until they shoot themselves or whatever, and it will never really be revealed that the shitty law had that kind of a "chilling effect" which likely DIRECTLY influenced that outcome...
Not to mention it does reveal what the left thinks all along, they basically think anyone who owns a gun that doesn't have a badge is a 110% piece of shit that isn't even worthy of mental health treatment. They will never admit it but that is obviously what they think, by this action.
-Mike
bigpick
NES Member
The false filing thing is tricky, someone could easily just say "well I believe he or she could be a harm to themselves or others, because they are getting help for anxiety." Those fines will never be imposed. It will be, well we're just making sure that person is fit to have a gun. Everyone will then applaud yay see we're not infringing on your rights we just need to make sure. Awful awful bill.
well, the government did great when they outlawed alcohol and the war on drugs seems very controlled. Those issues seemed to have worked so well. Can't wait to see how they will handle a ban on guns.
I think there needs to be a consequences for stripping Americans of their rights and freedoms. Until there is you will continue to have these moonbat laws and restrictions.
I think there needs to be a consequences for stripping Americans of their rights and freedoms. Until there is you will continue to have these moonbat laws and restrictions.
Koolmoose
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,045
- Likes
- 509
Definitely on course, especially with all the additional reactions of the left precipitated by the Trump election.
Cool, it has to get worse before it can get better!
Maybe some fudds will get their guns taken away and wake some people up to protect their rights!![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
I am very cynical about ever seeing a reaction from the Fudds. They will continue to react like the frog in warm water until it will be far to late to be an effective force against total confiscation.
Even if they don't admit it, or even logically realize it, this is in essence the unintended consequence of their actions and this law.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Just think about how this might change the sequence of events or the actions of a mentally unstable person in a crises when it becomes common knowledge what will happen to them under this law. This might actually accelerate / intensify bad situations.
Of course it will do that... but again, the worst part is, due to the "information gap" as I call it, a major contributing factor to the incident will not be revealed in the aftermath, allowing the moonbats to skate on taking responsibility for this bullshit.
It reminds me of the Lautenberg Amendment. There are probably women who are DEAD because of the amendment, but because of the fact that the pieces aren't in plain sight (eg, that a woman wanted to buy a gun to protect herself, but was denied because of a misdemeanor DV conviction in a mandatory DV state) that little important nugget will never make it to the surface when the issue is being discussed. Well, unless some gun shop owner comes forward and said "Yeah, I just about fell over when I saw her face on TV, She came here a week ago and wanted to buy a handgun, but she was denied on a background check."
-Mike
It's funny you should say this because it was Oregon that was literally stealing children from families for profit. Well, that's not really funny.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a common misconception. In fact, if you track who writes bills it becomes clear that the results of laws are usually exactly as intended and the name or stated purpose of the law is a smokescreen.
See for example the patriot act and how often it has been used against citizens vs terrorists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My best guess is the fine was included in this bill not to protect citizens but to protect LEO & the ruling class from citizens. This way, they can imprison plebes for trying to pull this shit on their masters. The fine is simply another means of oppression in addition to the denial of your right to self defense.
Establishing criteria, even if "reasonable" or "common sense", for extra-judicial denial of due process, means that the criteria can be changed. Disarmament will happen as it will be determined outside of clinical psychiatry that the desire to own a gun is a dangerous mental deficiency which, in true Catch-22 logic, should disqualify someone from owning a gun.
amm5061
NES Member
No no no! You can't stand and defend a fixed position, it will only end in slaughter. Great if you want to go out in a blaze of glory and all, but guerrilla tactics are the more effective way to go when fighting a numerically and technologically superior enemy.
SKumar
NES Member
Ok, so what is the definition of "imminent risk"? Who decides what the threshold is?
I love how politicians use vague terms to broaden their authority. You know exactly which end of the "imminent risk" spectrum they'll be pushing for.
This is gun confiscation. Period. Instead of advocating personal defense against an imminent risk, politicians would rather have both sides disarmed. And you know exactly which side will remained armed while the other follows the law.
So lets put this all into perspective shall we. The Government does not want you to be able to protect yourself ( Guns ) The Government wants to control your health care ( Obama care ) the Government wants to see to it you don't drive a car ( Self driving cars or Autonomous cars controlled by the government ) The government don't want you growing your own food ( GMO's ) Government don't want you owning cash ( BitCoin or whatever they decided upon ) The Government wants to erase history from your mind ( Fake race wars and statue removal )
Yup a virtual Utopia..And people are cheering for this?
Yup a virtual Utopia..And people are cheering for this?
Call me cynical, but I think that's actually the point. Many people with a surmountable mental illness such as anxiety, PTSD, minor depression, grief at the loss of a loved one, etc, will forgo seeking treatment out of fear of being victimized by this law, and eventually a small number of these people will have their issue incubate long enough that it results in a tragedy. Then these same people pushing for laws like this will say "see the law doesn't go far enough" and push for more useless and ineffective laws. Look at the 1994 AWB, where they targeted some of the most popular firearms in the country. Despite how popular these guns were (and still are), they accounted for less than 2% of all crimes committed with guns. When the law was ineffective, did they say "oops our bad, we should repeal it" (especially at state level where several states still have it in place)? No, instead they said "we need more laws. more, more, more."
