I think you can believe in gun rights and gun control at the same time. This will probably get me a lot of flack, but why can't someone own a gun that goes through the proper checks and training. If they want a larger, higher caliber gun, they have to go through more training. We require different licenses for every level of driving.....cars, commercial, buses, 18-wheelers, etc. Why not checks/training for for any gun and then additional for something more?
That shouldn’t catch you any flack at all. It’s what we are asking for. Just no more open sales at gun shows and unlicensed ownership.
I believe in both. Many of us here believe in both. This is part of what most of us have been asking for.
Pretty extensive but you can check it out here. https://www.tinafororegon.com/priorities/ Thing is she has been working on all of this for a very long time and knows quite a bit about all the issues.
How do you see the race at this point shaping up? Does Kotek win going away? I think she will as I see the other two eating each other.
Unfortunately, I think Portland area voters will put Kotek over the top, with help (as you point out) from Johnson and Drazan cancelling each other out. I am not excited about this race. All candidates are certainly qualified but they all come with too much baggage for my taste. Kotek is far too progressive for the moment, Johnson seems like a self entitled loose cannon and Drazan is a Republican (enough said). I will likely leave my ballot blank for that particular race.
Idk. She has been campaigning with ads hard and makes some good points. She wants to clean up the homeless off the streets. So do the others but they say it in a touchy feely sort of way. Drazan says it as a matter of fact. Even though she is Republican, I think that will resonate with a lot of people. I don't believe I will vote for her. But I could see a lot of people doing so.
She is probably just planning on throwing all the homeless people in jail. I don't see that many liberals voting for a republican, especially a Trumplican.
No flack at all from me. It's a conversation that needs to be had, IMO. We have discussed it quite a bit in the "Cold Dead Hands" thread. If anybody prefers to go there, I'm more than willing. We can currently go through proper checks and training. There is nothing preventing that. We can't require it without amending the constitution. We can't require this on guns because it has been determined numerous times that the constitution prohibits it. The supreme court is not going to reverse these decisions for decades, if ever. In order to get around the supreme court, we'd have to do a constitutional amendment. This requires the support of 75% of US states. That would be 38 states. 35 states currently support permitless open carry, and are opposed to further gun control. This, after 7 states joined the prior 28 states just last year. So the momentum is going completely the wrong direction. Strict gun control is being ruled unconstitutional in state after state. Those are the reasons we can't have what you are suggesting for at least several decades. That doesn't mean we can't address gun crime. It just means we can't address it by restricting access to guns.
We've had these conversations already. As far as I'm concerned these are extremely lazy takes. Four different times you actually wrote "We Can't". Yes We Can and it should not take decades. Carry on.
Well, the question was "why can't we". So I answered that question. Rather than replying with veiled insults and semantics, I would suggest addressing the actual post.
We can...what? Pass laws that violate the constitution? Sure--but they'll get overturned, so what's the point?
