The left-wing case against Measure 114
You knew that the gun control measure on the fall ballot here in Oregon, Measure 114 – which I strongly support – would be opposed by the right-wingers. But don't be surprised when you hear some opposing arguments from the left as well.
Because the measure gives the police far greater authority over gun posession and ownership, you can be sure that cop haters will be against it. And there will be "equity" arguments, too – about how members of minority groups, who most urgently need to protect themselves, won't be able to afford the training they'll need to get a permit.
Maybe these arguments will convince you to vote against Measure 114; maybe they won't. But don't be surprised, as I initially was, to hear them. Give yourself time to think about them.
This Democrat is voting “No” because 114 will be ineffective in curbing the actual problem it is supposed to address - gun violence. It will succeed in making law-abiding citizens jump through more hoops (and Portlanders will get extra satisfaction that southern Oregon law enforcement agencies do not have the funds to meet their new obligations). The felons shooting up Portland with handguns equipped with extended magazines and Chinese-made machine gun conversion kits will continue to do so. The first clue they will ignore 114 is that they are felons unlawfully carrying guns now. The only answer to reduce gun violence is aggressive federal prosecution (DA Schmidt won’t do it) and long incarceration of the shooters. That is what worked in Portland in the late 1980s and continued to work until the insane summer of 2020.
ReplyDeleteAll the buzz words. Law abiding citizens! Southern Oregon! Felons! Criminals!
DeleteThe gun nuts in this country have made this an all or nothing proposition. Fine by me. Let's get to work.
I'll be voting yes.
I agree with Bean 100 percent. Yes, we need more prosecution and incarceration. But we also need to get the huge inventory of hardware off the street. It will take 50 years. Let's finally start.
DeleteDiscussing this with friends scattered around, one wrote:
ReplyDelete"My gun experience began with a 4-10 shotgun for Christmas in the 4th grade, a step up from my sling shots and BB gun. My Father an outdoorsman had trained me well handling weapons that likely saved the life of a 6th grade kid in Rio Grande City. A few of us were at a friend’s house who lived alone with his father, who was away. He brought out his father’s gun collection thinking they were unloaded and pointed a 22 at us and pulled the trigger, then pointed a shotgun and I playfully raised the barrel up before he pulled the trigger. The gun was loaded and shot a hole in the ceiling. We promptly went home, and next day the hole apparently went unnoticed by his father and we stayed mum. As there was no ER or a hospital in RGC, I am certain the kid would not have survived.
Later in basic infantry training I learned to use a M14, predecessor of the M15, where in practice with an open sight I could hit man-sized pop targets 300 meters away, and it could be scary on automatic in simulated up-close combat. No one should really own one except for target practice under supervision in a gun club, certainly not 18 year old kids."
Chicago and New York have very restricting gun laws- gun violence continues to soar and destroy neighborhoods. The UK has very strict rules on guns too and knife attacks are soaring. So not as easy a solution as is being portrayed. Now we have carjackings, home intrusions, and aggravated assaults to worry about. It would be nice if there were effective means to defend yourself without use of lethal force, but being defenseless is not a solution. And let's not pretend that is not the ultimate goal with this toe in the door measure.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the Fox News talking points. Be careful with your machine gun; don't hurt yourself.
Delete