This commentary is not about spring and tulips, but I wish it were.
For a while there, until the clouds rolled back in Sunday night, the pleasant springtime weather made it hard to worry about the dismal state of Oregon politics. But then, ahead of the dark skies, came The Oregonian and reminded us that the leading Democrats in state government are not giving up their quest to further circumscribe citizens’ rights in the name of gun control.
As the Portland paper reported, Governor Brown and Attorney General Rosenblum are exploring “executive action” to restrict a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Oregon Bill of Rights. Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to try again in 2017 to pass a prohibition on gun sales when the state police can’t for some reason complete a background check. And Ginny Burdick, the Senate majority leader, is pursuing what the paper called a “court-sanctioned mechanism for removing guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others.”
That last one is the most subversive. In the February session, before the bill died, the idea was that people could notify the police if they thought someone should be barred from buying a gun for 30 days. But what if the person already had one? The logical next step would be to send the police and search his house and seize all the weapons they could find.
I don’t know whether the backers of this approach fail to recognize the Soviet/Fascist aroma in this idea, or whether they don’t care.
The one question backers of these ideas never ask is what good they would do even if they could be squared with citizens’ constitutional rights. How many people in Oregon have actually run out to try to buy a gun because they feel they have a sudden urge to shoot themselves or someone else?
What the dogged pursuit of these ideas accomplishes is to confirm the fear that campaigners for so-called gun control will never quit. They won’t quit until they have effectively repealed, with a thicket of laws and limitations, a fundamental American right. (hh)
It seems to be more productive to be a bad guy killing citizens and/or selling drugs, than to be a tax paying citizen who has loyalty to this Country. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT sells arms to the bad guys – 50. cal among others THEY KILL people – and what happens to them??? OUR OWN GOVERNMENT allows illegals to break the law and then PAYS THEM to stay in this Country. Is it so dollar productive to be in office that politicians are that corrupt, is there NO ONE in politics that takes their oath of office seriously…or honors our veterans or our FLAG.
When I “see” unarmed OSP officers patrolling the Salem capital, or providing security for Brown, unarmed officers providing security for politicians & the prez…… Then I might consider a “gun control” law. As it is now they ALL have armed protection so why can’t I have my firearms w/o restrictions..??!! Alright Lefties/Liberals, lemme have it!!…JE
Don’t worry– I’m sure sure they will be satisfied with the next law or executive action.
Not Gun Control, but Death Reduction. Guns are inanimate, therefore are not subject to control. Death is the ultimate function of a gun and the desire is to reduce the number of unintended and illegal deaths. Just like folks saying Death Tax instead of Estate Tax.
If you want Soviet/Fascist aroma, go to a Trump rally.
I agree with you…
More people control is what you libs want.
Especially people with the ability to fight back.
And let’s throw in this news:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/company-invents-gun-folds-look-cellphone-n547221
This couldn’t lead to people being shot holding a plain cell phone, could it?
In reading the link you provided, the first sentence of the last paragraph struck me as being interesting.
“Gun sales hit a new high in 2015 and have nearly doubled since President Obama took office, federal data shows. …..”
Don’t forget the massive run on buying ammunition right after the 2008 election. So much so that police and military had troubles for awhile replacing practice ammunition.
Reasons were, and are, clear: Mix an unhealthy dose of racism and an inability to accept change, with unreasoning fear promulgated by people seeking unbridled political power and unchecked wealth.
It is exactly what infected the slave holding south and led to the Civil War.
It’s a formula that has been passed down since the beginnings of time. And it infects extremists on all ends of the political spectrum. Right now it’s the Conservatives’ turn.
Held off writing until the inevitable firestorm subsided.
My issue here is with a different amendment.
The “court-sanctioned mechanism for removing guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others” seems Orwellian. If I get the drift, a court could authorize removal of personal property on the basis that something “might” happen. The “might happen” part is dangerous territory.
There was a time when family had authority and common sense to take care of the problem without having to resort to this tactic.
Why is it hat democrat legislators always want to restrict gun owner rights but never support any abortion restrictions–even allowing baby killing after removal from the mother.
Brain scans should be required for all voting democrats.
Hello Tom
Won’t get into the arms discussion here.
Once upon a time the Ds backed birth control, which precluded the need for abortion. The Rs seemed to want the female barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
Partial birth abortion, quite frankly, is at least killing and likely murder of an innocent.
Brain scans — which health plan will fund that?