Quote of the Day: An Oregon Pro Gun Democrat Opens His Eyes

“When I first became a member of the DPO’s Gun Owners Caucus, I bought one of our bumper stickers. The bumper sticker has a simple line on it. It says, ‘Democrats don’t want your guns – we’ve got our own.’ I love that line. It’s great, it’s simple, it’s to the point. I have since peeled that bumper sticker off my car.” – Oregon Democrat Party Gun Owners Caucus chair Bozeb Beckwith in Gun control bills get bipartisan support — and opposition [via oregonlive.com]

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Hmm.
    I missed that. And I’m on a few mailing lists for political news out of Salem.
    Good to know!

    1. avatar Charlie Mike Mike says:

      There are many pro gun democrats. But one must demonize and dehumanize the opposition in order to keep the hate alive. Otherwise reality raises its ugly head and the narrative falls apart causing a generational shift in voting.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        If you live in a blue state, you may be part of the problem.

        If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, progressive, communist, globalist or a rino, the problem is part of you, and your mother owes us an abortion.

        You (D)’s can say ‘hey, me too’ with guns all you want, it won’t garner you anything, you’re never going to move the dividing line to behind you. Save your $$$ for your elections, and we’ll knock our selves out trying to make them very expensive.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          Anonymoose, I’m not familiar with third reich rules for determining percentage of “jewishness”, but i heard you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish. Which Werner Goldberg’s mother wasn’t.

      2. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Pro-gun democrats are about as believable as Jewish Nazis. While I’m sure some exist, I’d be shocked that their heads haven’t exploded yet from the sheer cognitive dissonance.

        Quite frankly, if you’re pro-gun, the DNC is the last place you want to be. Especially given their hard turn to the left as of late.

        1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          Unless you are trying to change the Democratic for the better and agree with more of their other positions than you agree with Republican positions.

        2. avatar Pwrserge says:

          If you agree with their positions you’re either a socialist scumbag or an idiot. Either way, I doubt you’ll have much success “reforming” the DNC after it went full Stalinist. At that point, it’s about the same as “repairing” a house with 50 years of termite damage. You need to burn that sucker down and start over.

        3. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          There is a hell of a lot more going on in both parties than just their economic stances.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… There’s also the DNC support of terrorists and their little cult. But we shan’t get into that at the moment.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ohhh cr_p, here we go with ‘they’re all the same’ sh_t you get from satan’s evil blue house of (D) when people are calling them on it.

          The football bat spec-sheet for the evil (D) would take too long to F with here.

          And again, GUNS AIN’T THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE POS (D).

        6. avatar anonymoose says:

          The guy they used as the poster-boy for the perfect Aryan soldier was actually half-Jewish.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg
          There were lots of others in important positions, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazis_of_non-Germanic_descent

        7. avatar Tommycat says:

          It’s very easy to be seduced by the rhetoric of the Democratic party. What they claim and what they actually do are drastically different.
          Example: “We’re for the poor and middle class.”
          What they do is increase taxes and wages on businesses, which then either raise prices, or cut staff. There’s usually a set price point at which folks simply stop buying. So more people end up unemployed, and prices have risen, making the goods and services they got before harder to afford. This makes life worse on the working class, and makes it harder for the poor to get out of their situation.

      3. avatar Craig says:

        I have YET to see a “pro-gun” Demshovik in Fla (that’s probably an oxymoron) who will vote anything but party line when it really matters.

      4. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Pro Gun Democrats. The definitive example of Denial.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          There are obviously important differences between the two parties, such as on guns, but both have been perfectly happy to sell out our future for a little short term power. Both parties are responsible for the $20,000,000,000,000 debt, most accumulated since 1970, that will eventually destroy our system. And that’s just debt that they admit to. Including all of the other commitments like social security the real number is probably 10 times that. God help us all when the bill comes due.

      5. avatar MLeake says:

        The many pro-gun democrats are not enough to change the Democrat gun control plank, so even though you may personally oppose gun control, your vote enables gun control to pass.

        That isn’t demonizing you, that is just recognizing reality.

    2. avatar John says:

      I live in Douglas County and it’s very pro 2A here. Both my State Senator and Representative are Republicans and very 2A friendly. The problem in Oregon is that when things come to a vote the Dems outside the Portland/Eugene districts still vote with those Dems as a block instead of having the courage to vote the will of the people they are elected to represent. Why the folks in those districts continue to vote for them astounds me.

  2. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    Democrats don’t want our guns, for them selves. They want the Feds with the shiny badges to come get them and put them through those gun shredding machines. Fuck Democrats. True mental disorder.

    1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

      Chill out man. There are plenty of pro-grun Democrats in rural areas.

      1. avatar Dan in CO says:

        It’s not the “pro gun democrat” that is a mystery, that’s just self interest at play. What you’d be hard pressed to find would be a PRO-FREEDOM democrat. Jumbo shrimp, free slave, etc.

        1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          Both parties infringe on freedoms. Often different ones, but sometimes they infringe on the same. They both also poorly represent the American people’s interests.

          Both support gerrymandering and various political maneuvers that undermine democracy and unjust spying on the American people. Both support variations of unjust taxation. Both got us entangled in foreign conflicts, and both tend to bow to special interests and big business.

          If Republicans were truly “pro-freedom” they wouldn’t fight to ban gay marriage, restrict access to family planning, and fight against equal rights for LGBTQ people. They should let each religion or non-religious group decide for themselves if what is acceptable rather than have the government support their particular religious beliefs.

          If pro-gun Democrats want to be truly “pro-freedom” they wouldn’t force people to do things against their personal moral or religious codes and need to end many of the social justice programs that are racially or gender biased and aim programs at uplifting all Americans.

        2. avatar Tommycat says:

          “If Republicans were truly “pro-freedom” they wouldn’t fight to ban gay marriage, restrict access to family planning, and fight against equal rights for LGBTQ people. They should let each religion or non-religious group decide for themselves if what is acceptable rather than have the government support their particular religious beliefs.”
          Gay Marriage they want to leave to the states. But on that, I agree. The problem is that even when I agree, the Democrats take it too far. Forcing a bakery to take part in a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs.
          Restricting access to family planning? Nope. It costs the same for everyone. You’re saying PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO GET ABORTION. And even IF I were to say that was a right(despite it not being in the Constitution anywhere) the government doesn’t pay for me to have guns.
          Equal rights for LGBTQAAIP? What rights are the Republicans opposing?

          “If pro-gun Democrats want to be truly “pro-freedom” they wouldn’t force people to do things against their personal moral or religious codes and need to end many of the social justice programs that are racially or gender biased and aim programs at uplifting all Americans.”
          That’s simply the tip of that iceberg. And it’s pretty obvious you haven’t really looked into what anti-freedom policies they have. Their ideas for “helping” people are at best short sighted. It tends to create situations like we have currently where it is actually beneficial for people to stay unmarried, and have more children than they can support. It’s a bit like tossing someone a rope that’s down in a well. They lift them far enough off the bottom that they can’t just drop back down, but never enough to actually be on their own.

        3. avatar Dan in CO says:

          Correlation does not equal causation, the reason I mention Democrats is because it was mentioned in the article. I did not specify an additional political party for this chat. Which party freed the slaves? Repubs. Of all of the political parties, they do not represent the founding fathers intense the closest. Between Republicans and Democrats though, they are by and large closer than the Democrats.

          Family Planning does not mean murdering.

          A nation is made of three things: borders, language, culture. Once it stops being about its own borders, language, and culture; that nation cannot survive.

      2. avatar DaveP. says:

        …and they keep on voting and fundraising to put ANTIgun Democrats in office, then when their guns get banned they feel oh so sad about it- and keep on voting for gun-banning Democrats.

        1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

          ^ That. Right there.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Judge someone based on his actions. Do this and you will be hard pressed to find a pro gun Democrat.

      3. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Hellofromillinois: gun ownership is not my litmus test. Whether or not you are a Democrat is my litmus test. Therefore, I don’t give a shit whether a Democrat lives in a rural setting nor that they own firearms. They are Democrats.

        1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          You sound pretty paranoid. And angry. Feeling ok?

        2. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Butt still hurting from the armor roasting?

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          POS (D) lib-prog-comm-globalists are the problem. It might be hard to see if you are one, but from our side it looks like you’re doing it on purpose.

          Fix your sh_t (D), quit serving satan. When JESUS comes back, reach his bosom before we reach you.

        4. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          Nah, can’t feel anything past my fire retardant undies and tin foil hat. But thanks for asking.

          Hypocrite away though, it’s amusing.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Pardon me, I forgot to include POS RINOs.

        6. avatar Joe R. says:

          You know how F’d up POS (D) are? I’m telling my great great grandkids about them. You don’t have to be alive ‘Since FDR’, history welds a chain, you’re all F’d up. You could be considered worthless if your deleterious character didn’t prevent you from rising to the value of zero.

        7. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          So why do you hate all Democrats?

          In my mind, our goal should be to get both parties to be more pro-gun and more pro-individual liberty. Both sides have issues with the later. Given that roughly 1/3 of Democrats are gun owners, it is certainly possible to divide that party on many gun control issues enough that they wouldn’t be able to get enough votes to pass some of the ludicrous gun control laws even if they controlled Congress and the White House. Almost every person I know from Illinois and Iowa that is in their 20s or 30s is pro-gun unless they come from a large city and haven’t been exposed to recreational firearm use, and about 60% or more of them I’d say are Democrats. Some of the city slickers that I have taken shooting have come around to the pro-gun side.

          Several Democratic politicians in Illinois and Iowa have supported and even co-sponsored bills to correct unjust gun control laws and supported concealed carry. Rural Democrats tend to be our friends here in the Midwest, not our enemies.

        8. avatar Joe R. says:

          Because 1/2 way to F’d up is no place to meet someone who’s F’d up. Are you going to meet cancer, HIV, communism half-way? No.

          So,

          No.

        9. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          I don’t identify as a Democrat by the way. Politically I primarily a social libertarian, fiscal moderate. That puts me squarely up shit creek without a major party that I actually agree with on the majority of issues. The Democrats are currently more socially libertarian, so they tend to get my tentative support. If the Republicans get off the Evangelical Christian bandwagon and stick to freedom from and of religion, get on board with climate change as a serious threat to our country, support limited government rather than their version of a police state, local control (rather than only local control when they like what the local government does), and stop fear mongering then I’ll be happy to support them.

        10. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Identify” however you want, it won’t change the way you are “seen”.

          “SOCIETAL AGREEMENT” is how we live, and it is how we get-along. Without it, you won’t be able to come together to form a pile of dead bodies, much less a body convening to engross legislation. We live (in the U.S., but Societal Agreement(s) exist and are required everywhere) in a Society, under the Rule-of-Law, but that rule of law is very precariously and tenuously balanced upon Societal Agreement. You cannot ask for Societal Agreement to be abandoned (in whole or in part) and expect anything of the other to continue [if you want to ‘chuck this little piece’ then I want to chuck the rest]. Conservatism (specifically the version embracing capitalism) has shown to be the most supportive social theories for Societal Agreement. It is what keeps Societal Agreement(s) protected, it is what will restore Society (make Societal Agreements worth re-forming) should they fail. (J.M.Thomas, R., TERMS, 2012)

        11. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Why do I hate Democrats? Same reason I hate Nazis, Commies, and Islam. Experience.

          There has never been a good democratic president. Ever.

        12. avatar Joe R. says:

          +

          If one were to suggest that the only “good muslim” is a dead muslim (2nd best being a mortally wounded muslim) I would fail to disagree to the same extent that the (supposed) self-professed ‘good-kind of muslims’ are FING SILENT on how bad the group of muslims that we group together with them are.

          Same thing with the evil (D). You should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re an fing scourge.

        13. avatar Tommycat says:

          Climate change as a serious threat:
          We’re looking at an average increase in 50 years of .01 degrees. HARDLY a serious threat.

          Also, until someone can quantify a percentage man has on the global climate rate of change, I ain’t buying the idea of giving the federal government that much control over the economy. That’s the actual goal of all this climate change crap. They want even more control over industry. Look how much the fed has done to the agricultural and industrial industries. Tech is next. You want solar panels? Great, but we have all this waste from panel production sorry…

      4. avatar Joe R. says:

        Guns ain’t the only problem. But nice straw man though.

      5. There’s a lot of horse shit in rural areas too and I trust the horse shit to defend the Constitution more than any Democrat Fudd.

        1. avatar Waffensammler98 says:

          Tea, meet keyboard

        2. avatar Tommycat says:

          Should not have been reading that while drinking… let that be a lesson to me…

          also… coffee hurts…

      6. avatar Fort Cannon says:

        “To thine own self be true. Democrats that are pro-gun? It only lasts until it is in their best interest to change gears.

  3. avatar BobProg says:

    Brave. The Democrat Party often punishes disloyalty, and in their eyes, to reject one of their main platforms is treason. I am happy that there are a few who will stand up against their tyranny.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Stalin would view the democrats quite favorably as they have purged most of the rational thinkers from the ranks.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    An indoor range that allows black powder? We ain’t in the bay area anymore, toto.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Kind of like saying “I didn’t realize it was that kind of Klan!”

    1. avatar DallasMatt says:

      Klan was a democrat group.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        S T I L L

        I S

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Your denial is impressive. There are lots of extremist left organizations. The klan ain’t one of em.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          The Klan ain’t a Conservative group, holding, finding, belief, creed, sect, slice, servant, or long-lost 3rd Cousin Quince-removed, and you cannot attribute it to Republican politics or personnel either.

          All that sh_t is (D).

          “Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, died Monday at 92. While he was most famous as a master of the Senate’s obscure rules, Byrd wore many hats during his lifetime, including that of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan. – http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/06/what_does_an_exalted_cyclops_do.html

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

  6. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    “Senate Bill 868 would enable immediate family members to obtain a court order to prevent a person showing signs of wanting to commit suicide”

    From the state with physician assisted suicide.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      It’s all about getting permission.

  7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    He should peal the (D) next to his name off as well.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It’s the mark of the beast, so it would take Gabriel’s trumpet to do it.

  8. avatar VillarPerosa says:

    yep my parents are die hard dems, and fairly gun friendly. my dad has no issue, my mother just doesn’t like them, supports BGC but never confiscation.

  9. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Labels are part of the problem since they don’t convey any of the information that actually matters (where you stand on issues).

    People hear “Democrat” and assume the worst and vice versa.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Correct, negative stereotypes MAY begin in ignorance. They stick around when too many people live up to them. You either are purposefully ignorant of history, have forgotten it, or are lying.

      Are you at least old enough to remember Dan Rostenkowski, 5th Dist., IL?

    2. avatar Shire-man says:

      It’s because of party platform. Once an individual identifies with a party they forfeit their individuality to the party position.

      It doesn’t matter how many (R)’s aren’t faux puritan bible-thumpers or how many (D)’s aren’t totalitarian disarmers because at the end of the legislative day the party wins over the individual.

      The best thing the (R)’s can do is remove their marriage protection language from the party platform and the best thing the (D)’s can do is remove gun control from their party platform but even that is essentially an empty gesture since its just words on paper and not a contractual obligation to action or inaction.

      1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

        This man get it. That’s why us lovers of individual liberty should be pushing both parties to move in the right direction. We certainly don’t want one party to take control of everything the long term. That puts us in serious danger.

        We need more Democrats to become pro-gun to get that party to be less of a threat to gun rights, and we need the Republicans to become less controlled by the Evangelicals and thus pushing laws that violate the rights of women, LGBTQ, etc.

        ideally we also need to find a way to bust the deadlocked two party system. “Third” parties actually being able to compete with the Democrats and Republicans would force more compromise in government and help prevent either party from dominating the American people.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Please tell me what “rights” the GOP are pushing to be violated. This is the largest load of garbage I hear from the radical left.

          Infanticide is not a right.
          Having other people pay for your shit is not a right.
          Demanding others laud your deviant behavior is not a right.

          The reality is that the left has decided that anything the want really really badly is somehow a right. No dice.

        2. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          Off the top of my head:
          -Freedom of religion/separation of church and state (passage of laws to enforce religious values, inclusion of “God” in government backed currency and schools, tax exempt status for religious institutions, etc.)
          -Equal protection under the law (by denying some the right to marry you deny them the legal protections of marriage for example)
          -Involuntary search and seizure (use of intelligence agencies to spy on Americans en masse)
          -Unjust taxation via loopholes favoring the wealthy and big businesses over small businesses
          -Right to life (inability to come up with health care solution that ensures all Americans have access to basic health care)
          -Cruel and unusual punishment (Incarceration for victim-less crimes, use of torture, etc.)
          -Unjust use of military force abroad (including engaging in what amounts to war without a congressional declaration)

          Both major parties are complicit in some of these, especially in terms of incarceration and military use, and both parties seem to want their own version of a police state.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Ok… let’s take your commie bullshit apart piece by piece.

          1. The government has no right to tax religious institutions. That would fall under the “free exercise” part of the 1st amendment.

          2. Gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. What you’re demanding is that somehow being gay should grant you a right that does not exist.

          3. [citation needed] The only mass surveillance you can prove was carried out by Obama.

          4. Somehow I don’t see you supporting a flat tax or better yet, an “equal share” tax where everyone is taxed the same dollar amount. You just want shit that doesn’t belong to you.

          5. You have no right to healthcare paid for by others. There are no Americans being denied healthcare they can pay for. That’s what “access” actually means. It is not my job to pay for your doctor nor is it your right to hold a gun to my head to make me pay for your shit.

          6. The US government has never used torture. The fact that you compare water boarding to actual torture is an insult to people who have actually been tortured by people like your hero Stalin or Saddam. Oh and drug dealing is not a “victimless” crime. Selling poison to people should get you flogged in the public square until your corpse looks like tuna tartar.

          7. Tell me more about how the GOP didn’t have congressional authorization for the Iraq and Afghan wars… Unlike Obama, Bush actually followed the law.

          Take your commie bullshit and shove it where the sun don’t shine. The sooner the DNC joins the Whig party in the dustbin of history, the better.

        4. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          1) Why not tax them the same as everyone else? That is equal as opposed to preferential treatment and does not prevent the free exercise of religion.
          2) Marriage recognized as legal by the government affect partner’s ability to make life and death decisions, visit their loved ones in hospitals, raise families, and much more than simple taxes and tax breaks.
          3) We know Bush approved warrant-less wiretapping, and that the FBI has been spying on Americans since at least the 1950s including on Martin Luther King Jr. and others during the Civil Rights movement.
          4) Hey you got something part right! I am for a progressive tax because either of the taxes you mention are not truly equal or fair given cost of living. Those that have the least ability to pay shouldn’t pay the same as those with the most ability to pay.
          5) Didn’t say you should have to. I simply said that the Republicans have come up with no solution to our healthcare crisis. Being pro-life should extend past birth. Innocent people shouldn’t die from readily treatable disease due to corporate greed.
          6) The U.S. has definitely used torture. Waterboarding is by pretty much any objective measure torture and the U.S. absolutely has used much more brutal forms of torture going back to the founding of this country. Nice try making a random personal attack by saying I am pro Saddam or pro Stalin despite both of them standing against most of the values I’ve mentioned here. That makes no sense.
          7) Did I say it didn’t for those wars? Oh wait no I didn’t, so again nice try attempting to say I said something I didn’t. Presidents from both parties have conducted raids and airstrikes in foreign countries that if they had happened on our soil we would have considered acts of war without congressional approval.

          Now I am a commie? When have I said I supported anything close to communism. The only political views I have express thus far clearly suggest I am primarily libertarian on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues.

          So you want to see one party rule? You know who has one party rule don’t you? Communist and fascists! Haha. You crack me up.

        5. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Ok. I’ll play your little game.

          1. What part of “free” do you not understand? Once you tax something, it is no longer taxed. It more or less eliminates any religious groups that can’t or won’t pay your tax. This is settled law and has been for centuries.

          2. Let’s not pretend that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to those problems that don’t involve destroying the most important institution in human society.

          3. On Bush, you’re going to need to be a lot more specific. His taps had legitimate military and intelligence purposes. Ancient history carried out by demokkkrats is not my problem.

          4. Your “ability” to pay has no relation to your social obligations. You live in society cough up the cash or get the hell out.

          5. Not my problem or my financial responsibility. If you feel strongly about it, go give your money to charity hospitals and leave the government out of it.

          6. [citation needed] As someone who actually HAS been waterboarded, you’re full of shit.

          7. The president has authority to use the military without a declaration of war, that’s been settled law for over a century. This is especially true when we’re talking about imminent threats to US interests. Do the Barbary campaigns ring a bell?

          You can pretend you’re not a commie all you want but standing there and claiming to be a libertarian is a joke. You don’t believe in individual liberty. You believe in mob rule. That’s why you can no more negotiate with leftists than you can with Nazis.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Liberals are always hoping to cut a ‘small’ piece out of the balloon called ‘Society’ and ask for it to remain inflated.

      If (R) removes marriage protections, they are (D).
      If (R) removes abortion distructions, they are (D).
      If (R) don’t do repeal of Ohole care, they are (D).
      If (R) don’t do tax reform and reductions, they are (D).

      The (R) are not in any better boat, they are just bailing slightly faster than the water is filling their boat. And that water has tea in it.

      1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

        Marriage protections? Us straight folk do a good enough job ruining our marriages. I cannot comprehend how a couple of dudes or women getting married is a threat to anyone or their marriage.

        In terms of the other issues, Republicans stand for a lot more than the list above, and of course being pro-choice or any of the other above do not suddenly make you a Democrat.

        1. It’s not a threat to a marriage on a personal level.
          It destroyed the institution of marriage.
          Society decided, rightly so, that monogamous relationships between a man and woman was beneficial. The marriage ceremony helped enforce that bond. Government, acting in the interest of society, relieved burdens on married couples in order to promote family well being.
          Homosexuality doesn’t have the same impact in a positive way to society so it isn’t encouraged.
          There is no such thing as a ban on gay marriage. Marriage was defined and gays changed that definition.

        2. avatar Pwrserge says:

          1. There is not such thing as “pro choice” its “pro murder”.
          2. Gays getting tax breaks for being “married” defeats the purpose of legalized marriage, which is to produce children so that we don’t have to import third world savages. It raises the taxes on the rest of us and grants these clowns privileges as if they were actually contributing to the next generation of our society rather than being useless evolutionary dead ends.

        3. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          So by society you mean the churches? Because a hell of a lot of people (~60%) in our society think gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

        4. Societies degrade. Learn history.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, and then Societies rise up and kill those that furthered and hastened the decline, so as to lessen their vote in reconvening Societies.

          Play the argument out to the extreme. You want to do “anything goes”, I say, ok, we’ll do my version and you won’t like it.

        6. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

          Having studied history for over a decade and working within the historical profession, I am quiet comfortable with my grasp on history thank you very much.

          Human history is actually primarily a march towards human rights rather than away from it generally and of degrading influence of religious institutions, but their are strongholds of oppression and periods of reversals.

        7. Gay marriage isn’t a human right. Tax benefits for traditional families isn’t a human right either. It’s just better for society to encourage the traditional family structure. Just a fact.

        8. avatar Pwrserge says:

          This is why I despise most modern historians. They take human history and twist it into a pretzel to make it fit their ideology. There is one truth in history. A society without a strong moral core is committing suicide. Lefty scum are doing their best to open the gates and undermine the walls.

        9. avatar Tommycat says:

          I always find it odd how internet “Historians” always forget large swaths of history…

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The problem is that 98% of Democrat politicians vote the party line on gun control regardless of their stated position on firearm ownership. Adding to the problem, 90% of electors who call themselves Democrat will always vote for Democrat politicians even when those politicians announce that they will vote for civilian disarmament.

    In other words virtually all electors and politicians who claim to be Democrats support civilian disarmament with their votes, campaign money, and tax dollars regardless of their spoken support of our right to keep and bear arms.

    THAT is the problem.

  11. avatar C.S. says:

    Pro-gun Democrat: guns for me, not for thee

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Pro-gun Democrat: “Can’t we just do satanic socialism until we can trick you into doing satanic communism?” “C’mon, the UN has already paid us to sell this sh_t.

    2. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

      Not in my experience with regular people and some politicians.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Oh really? Then where the hell is my suppressor bill in Springfield?

      2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        So a handful of anecdotes somehow supersedes the obvious national and historical trend? I’m still waiting on the Commie (D) party to admit that their “just one final gun bill” NFA, GCA, provisions in the LEOPA, Hughes Amendment in the FOPA, GFZ, and every other commie gun bill apply to everyone. Oh wait! They don’t, because they always have little carve-outs! Or in Commiefornia, the D legislature exempts themselves from “High-capacity” and “Assault Weapons” bans. So please, tell me again how the Democratic party is not “Guns for me, but not for thee” again?

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Hey I’m from Illinois too. There ARE pro-gun dumbocrats. But they also keep in power the anti-gun azzwholes. And tax the hell out of everyone so they can have gigantic pensions. Republicans aren’t much better. It’s not just Chicago and Cook County who’ve destroyed this state. Make that FAILED state…

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Gabriele Giffords (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are just three examples of so-called “pro-gun Democrats,” and all of them fvcked us over.

    A pro-gun Democrat is simply one that hasn’t turned on us yet.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Kirsten Gillibrand took over the Hags seat and upstate actually thought she was one of them because she grew up there. Once she locked up the support of the money down south east Ny she was able to let the gun control rip.

  14. When, precisely, did he open his eyes?
    When he peeled the bumper sticker off?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Off of the bumper, not the glass. That’s a telling distinction.

  15. avatar Icabod says:

    After digging I found what was said after the quote:

    “He said he took it off after reading SB 868, the suicide prevention bill. The bill made his bumper sticker false, he said. Though Beckwith admitted that his speech might jeopardize his standing with his party, he said he’s not a “crazy gun guy.”

    “I’m just a guy,” he said. “I’m a guy who took a shift off work to come down to Salem to try and break through this space between us in two minutes. To help members of this committee see this bill for what it is – a bill that takes our guns away.”

  16. avatar Jean-Claude says:

    YouTuber “The Yankee Marshall” recently posted a video in which he rails against the NRA in general, and Wayne LaPierre in particular. His main gripe, as he lives in Washington state, is that the NRA didn’t expend valuable capital fighting against Washington’s recent gun laws. His conspiracy theory is the NRA is willing to sacrifice “non right wing states” (his term) to whip up fear amongst the membership and increase donations.

    But this is a guy who has a podcast called “Left of center with Yankee” or something. If you are a gun owner and you EVER vote Democrat, you are supporting a party which has as one of its core principles the restriction of your gun rights. Places like the Pacific coast are filled with gun owners who also vote Democrat. I can guarantee they are—because all of those states have Dems in control of all branches of their government. If gun owners were truly single issue voters that wouldn’t be a thing.

    I guess what I’m saying is F ’em. They vote for Democrats and then whine when Democrats do Democrat stuff.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    All the bad sh_t we discuss here is from the POS lib-prog-comm-globalist (D) and RINOs. And we don’t even discuss everything that’s wrong with the broke (D)I<k (D).

  18. avatar rt66paul says:

    While I hate the idea that “family” can legally take your guns and giving the state more time to make sure that you should be able to have a gun, these arguements will sway many people.
    How about the family has 2 weeks to pay for a shrink to say that you are bonkers and has to pony up $1000 or some such fee to put the guns in 3rd party hands( like an FFL that rents lockers). This way the victim gets his guns back at the end of 2 weeks after seeing a paid for shrink of his choice. And he pays nothing – and if he is kept from a hunting trip(or the like) the family gets to pay him punative damages. The shink ought to be liable for damages in taking your rights beyond that 2 weeks or so.

    As far as the 3 day limit, there is enough time to uncover a non compliance issue, make a judge sign off on it and then only for first time gun owners (those that have never owned a firearm in thier life). Anything less than that is just harrasment by the state.

    Most of us gun owners do not like to see idiots with firearms – ones that will NOT shoot safely and those that truely are a danger to society. As for those that want to commit suicide and still do after they jump through the hoops….We are not going to stop them from completeing their task.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      How bout we fix the ‘fixers’ with a $1000 STFU fine?

      Anybody ask you or them to “solve” a n y t h I n g ?

      Why is it that stupid mfs out there think we believe that (even if asked) that they could provide for security on an individual level. Ever notice why these self-same idiots are also the ones who want to chuck the little pieces of Societal Agreement that actually provide some semblance of self-protection, and the reason to allow others the opportunity for self-protection?

      Poop to that. – Marvin Boggs

  19. avatar Adam says:

    Democrats have plenty of guns. Feinstein even has a concealed carry permit in California. The problem is that they live by the old motto of “Guns for me but not for thee.”

  20. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    The bill expands the circle of people who can bring this court order to seize your firearms to include anyone with whom the person has or has had a sexual relationship.

    Great, so now anyone who gets into a heated political argument at the 25th annual class reunion with their now uber liberal high school prom date, can now expect the gun grabber crew to bash down their door on her say so.

    Blew off calling that one night stand after your so-so encounter? Bye bye firearms.

    Oregon, you can do better. You want to do some legislating? How about you work on that old Law of Unintended Consequences.

    Or is that a feature, not a flaw?

  21. avatar Setnakhte says:

    Any Oregon people ever ask this guy about any specifics of his 2A views?
    What’s his voting record been on this? Has there been a big change in his votes?

  22. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    A pro-gun Democrat… you had me for about a quarter of a second when I remembered that the blue-dogs were purged following the 2010 mid-terms that saw most of their districts turn red. Their are no more pro-gun Democrats. Only commies and useful idiots. Don’t be a single issue voter folks, but if someone wants to disarm you, shoot them.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      What I Have Learned From the Twentieth Century

      With thanks to Schoolmasters Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot

      From the Liberty Pole
      June, 1999
      by Mike Vanderboegh

      As an amateur historian of this sad century whose time is almost up, I would like to reflect upon six lessons I have learned in my studies. Folks who wish to live free and prosperous in the next century would do well to understand the failures of the past.

      LESSON NO. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you do not want to go because of who you are or what you think — kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent him. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant’s executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.

      LESSON NO. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms — kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

      LESSON NO. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you be more easily identified — tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that are not on their list.

      LESSON NO. 4: Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is “democratically elected” does not mean he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932.

      And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, does not mean be believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others.

      The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate does not mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled “Showers” does not necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of “is” is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants — but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.

      LESSON NO. 5: Our constitutional republic as crafted by the Founders is the worst form of government in the world, except when compared to all the others. Capitalism, as well, is a terrible way to run an economy, except when compared to all other economic systems. Unrestrained democracy is best expressed as three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner. The horrors of collectivism in all its forms — socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism — have been demonstrated beyond dispute by considerable wasteful trial and bloody error. Leaders such as Bill Clinton who view the Constitution as inconvenient and ignorable are harbingers of tyranny.

      LESSON NO. 6: While nations do not always get the leaders they deserve, they always get the leaders they tolerate. And anyone who tells you that “It Can’t Happen Here” is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no “house rule” that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos. Dictators count on the assistance of people who are complacent, fearful, envious, lazy and corrupt. While there is no “Collective guilt” to the crimes of a regime (all such crimes being committed by specific criminal individuals), there is certainly “collective responsibility” — especially for those who watch the criminals at work without objecting or interfering.

      A French journalist of the last century wrote: “I must speak out, for I will not be an accomplice.” Evil tyrants require, indeed they depend upon, willing and unwilling accomplices — good people who would never think of harming a soul themselves. Lenin called such people “useful idiots.”

      De Tocqueville observed that “America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” As related in the Old Testament, God judged nations based upon the immorality and criminality of their leaders. Entire peoples were scourged because of their failure to remove corrupt leaders.

      As we move from the Twentieth Century into the Twenty-First, we should take care to remember the ancient story of Sodom and Gommorrah. If we wish to avoid the butchery of the Twentieth Century and the righteous judgment of the God of our antiquity, we would do well to keep our Bibles, our Constitution and our firearms close at hand.
      Posted by Dutchman6 at 12:18 PM

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Well put.

  23. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “But, he said, if the proposed law saves even one life, it will be worth it.” – Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill. He just couldn’t resist, could he.

  24. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

    A lot of chatter here on politics so I thought I’d just leave this here:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

    “ontheissues.org” purports to be a non-partizan resource for information on politicians and politics. They’ve been pretty unbiased from what I’ve seen so far. Regardless the information comes straight from the Democratic Party Platform.

    Seems to me if you declare yourself a Democrat and continue to vote for them, regardless of your personal views, your objective is to restore the assault weapons ban and institute constrictive gun control laws. The Democratic party platform is unabashedly hostile to private firearm ownership.

    So stop trying to color it as “I call myself a Democrat but….” If you’re pro Democrat you’re anti-gun.

  25. avatar tmm says:

    Well…THOSE Democrats, perhaps.

  26. avatar LHW says:

    Sounds like some fake news.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email