THE GUN GRABBERS IN OREGON HAVE GONE CRAZY

 

 

This proposed bill in Oregon is complete nonsense. The law is so restrictive it would practically end gun use in the state. For years the Liberals have been saying that "nobody is coming after our guns", and they have been lying! Do not believe the gun grabbing Liberals! The dream of every gun grabber is the ultimate banning of all civilian firearm ownership or usage.

The law limits ammo purchases to 20 rounds a month, per person. Most boxes of small caliber ammo contain more than 20 rounds! A normal trip to the local shooting range, to sight in a scope for example, generally requires more than 20 rounds. Obviously someone wrote this, without having a clue about guns or ammunition.

This piece of legal idiocy bans all firearms with magazines capable of holding more than five rounds. Brilliant! Almost every firearm in existence has a magazine that holds more than five rounds. The list includes: most pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Even the vintage revolvers and lever action rifles of the late 1800's have magazines that hold more than five rounds. This law would basically ban almost all modern firearms. Obviously someone wrote this, without having a clue about guns or ammunition.

 

This nonsense needs to stop. The voters of Oregon should take a long and hard look at their elected representatives, anyone that supports this tyrannical law should be quickly booted out of office. We the People have the Right to Bear Arms. Do not allow misguided Liberals and vote hungry politicians to take away our Rights. 

JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT CLOSURE

The government has closed down, pending a budget agreement. SO WHAT? This does not have a real affect on the public. In previous decades, the government would be shutdown on a frequent basis. Nobody ever noticed until it became something for the media to salivate over. The mainstream press will find any number of media "experts" declaring the end of the world has arrived. These experts discuss doomsday scenarios, which will never occur, while keeping a straight face and serious expression. The more creative and nonsensical the fantasy, the higher the ratings. 

 Some folks will blame Trump and his single minded agenda of building walls on the Mexican border. Guess what, the US Government was shutdown under the following Presidents: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and the list goes on. Trump's idea of building a wall is nothing new. I can remember when Ronald Reagan took this idea to Congress during the 1980's, and almost every president since then has had the same idea, but the wall has yet to get built.

Two things will happen, before this government shutdown is finished. Congress will pass a budget of some sort, and government employees WILL get paid for the hours they lost during the shutdown. In the end, life will continue as it always has.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

RULED BY FEAR: GUN CONFISCATIONS HAVE BEGUN

Gun confiscations have begun, and they have already claimed the life of one victim. According to news sources, police went to the home of Gary J. Willis at 5:17 am. The suddenly woken man retrieved a handgun and answered the door, not certain who it was at such an early hour. When police identified themselves, he put down his weapon. However, when informed they were there to confiscate his weapons under Maryland's Red Flag law, a struggle ensued and a weapon was reportedly discharged. At which point, an officer fired his service weapon, killing Gary Willis.

So far, everything seems to be going according to plan. The state creates a law that allows interested third parties to petition the courts to confiscate the firearms of someone that is possibly dangerous, and the police can show up at all hours and save the day.  However, it seems a few points have been missed in this scenario.The law allows the courts to order the confiscation of person's personal property, based on the word of a third party. This law is open ended and a bit vague, meaning it will create nightmare scenarios for accused gun owners that are completely innocent of any crime.

 Let's take a moment to envision a hypothetical situation that is quite plausible, given the nature of the law and judicial system.
A gun owner and his ex-girlfriend have an argument, the ex-girlfriend feels scared because the man has several guns. The gun owner has never committed a crime, nor is he known to be violent, but he is quick tempered and can be argumentative and loud. So she turns to the courts, in order to calm her fears. The court determines there is reasonable grounds to confiscate the man's weapons, and the police quickly carry out the court's order. The man must now hire lawyers to represent him in court, in order to prove that he is not threat to anyone and is a responsible gun owner.  He wins his case and  receives his firearms from the police, in addition to a bill from his lawyer that adds up to thousands of dollars.

Who besides the man's attorney benefited from the above example? The courts and police have wasted precious time and money chasing an innocent man. The accused has lost time, his reputation, and lots of money, all because an ex-girlfriend was frightened by his demeanor. The ex-girlfriend has neither gained nor lost; she was honestly frightened by his demeanor, and is thus innocent of perjury, but was never in any real danger. The only ones that benefit from such laws are the trial lawyers that charge hundreds of dollars an hour.

In the example above, I could have been the gun owner in question. I am large, loud, emotional, argumentative, quick tempered, and I have been known to inadvertently frighten people with my demeanor.  I happen to be of Greek ancestry, being loud and quick tempered is a cultural thing. I know lots of other people that are also loud and quick tempered, and most of them are of varied backgrounds. Do we qualify as being a threat to society because we are men, or because we are loud and emotional? 

Some folks make the argument that this law will help prevent mass shootings, suicides, and other violent crimes, by allowing the courts to confiscate firearms based on the word of family members or closely associated persons. There is some merit to that argument, many crimes could have been prevented if the courts had been allowed to act proactively against troubled individuals. There is no doubt in my mind that the Maryland state legislature was focused on the safety of it's citizens when it passed this law; however, I don't believe this law is the correct solution.
 

 I do not know what the correct answer is, but I do know that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and that a whole lot of innocent people will have their property confiscated based on other people's fear. Fear is a powerful emotion, and people can act rashly when they are afraid. This law plays on the public's fear, and when a government uses fear as a tool to implement policy it becomes tyranny. Let's hope that cooler heads will eventually prevail, and draft laws that are based on reason instead of fear.