An Oregon judge enters the final order striking down a voter-approved gun control law

@sarabee1995 Out of curiosity, are you in favor of citizens owning machine guns?

@sarabee1995 Wow, okay. So it doesn't matter how many mass shootings there are, so long as the guns are okay.

@Ynotisay Never said that.

@LordShadowfire Never said that either.

@Ynotisay @LordShadowfire It is possible to have a nuisanced position on the right to self defense. My only point here is that there is a process for changing constitutional law and slim-majority popular petitions is not it.

@sarabee1995 I know you didn't say it. I asked a separate but related question.
And yeah. There is a process for changing constitutional law. And each state has their own constitution. And the voters voted to adapt THEIR gun laws. That's allowed under the Federal Constitution, right? That whole "state law" thing that certain people scream about as long as it's in their favor.
People could have still "beared arms" in Oregon. They just had to take a couple of steps. So what's the issue?

@Ynotisay
1) To answer you separate, but related, question, NO, I would not allow most citizens to own fully automatic (i.e. "assault" weapons). Currently, federal licenses are required to own fully automatic weapons and they are only issued in very limited numbers and with restrictive covenants. I agree with this law remaining in place and being better enforced.

2) This Oregon statute did not comply with the Oregon process to change the Oregon constitution. It also conflicted with the Federal Constitution, to which Oregon law is subject. Also, to my original point, both the Oregon Constitution and the Federal Constitution were voted in requiring super-majorities. This statute only passed with minimal simple majority. In what world would a small simple majority outweigh a super-majority?

@sarabee1995 I wasn't talking about assault weapons. I asked about machine guns. They're different. Machine guns are banned. But machine guns are "arms." So isn't it one or the other? Didn't an adaptation need to take place for that to happen? So maybe 'bear arms' has some wiggle room. And in this case there's NOTHING in it about not being able to "bear arms."

And I don't know what you're talking about in regards to supermajorities. The supermajority was required to get it on the ballot. This was a voter decision. Supermajorities aren't on the table when it comes to voting. The people spoke and one judge said they were wrong. That's what happened.

And I know for SURE that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the people voted for less restrictive gun laws, and one judge said they were wrong, your perspective on it would be different.

@sarabee1995 doesn't actually care about individual rights. She only cares about the rights of the guns.

@Ynotisay

@Ynotisay What most people call a "machine gun" is a fully automatic weapon (which is the real definition of an assault rifle, not the media definition). If fully automatic is not what you mean by machine gun, then I would need to ask you to clarify your term in order to answer your question. But no, I'm not generally in favor of the individual ownership of fully automatic weapons without the federal license and its requirements. I think this is a good and reasonable restriction on gun ownership.

The process to alter the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution both require super-majorities to be enacted. I'm not as familiar with the Oregon Constitution, but I imagine it is similar as most are. A legislative petition that passes at the ballot box by a minor, single digit, simple majority could not come close to altering the US or the Massachusetts Constitutions. These documents were put in place by two-thirds majorities and require such to be altered. This is not changing the speed limit in your town.

@LordShadowfire I'm really saddened to see you say this about me. I thought we'd had enough chats to know each other better.

The individual rights to expression, beliefs, self-defense, privacy, and so much more (life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness, etc) is sacrosanct to me. There is nothing more important. To me this whole discussion is not even about guns. It is about the nature of the individual in society and the extent to which we, as individuals, are willing to hand control to our government.

Don't forget that here in America, the government derives it's just powers only from the consent of the governed.

Every "right" stands the threat of abuse. Can anyone really tell me that the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion hasn't been abused? And yet, I don't hear cries for them to be curtailed. Yes, I do realize that the cost of abuse of the freedom to self defense is greater, far greater. But the cost to our relationship with our government is even greater still.

Recently the Supreme Court did not recognize the blatantly obvious right to privacy pervasive throughout so much of the Constitution and women are suffering across the country as a result. Our rights and freedoms are important and any curtailment of liberty is something I will always stand against. Sometimes that makes me a liberal and sometimes it makes me a conservative. I care not for labels.

@Ynotisay I am a full right to self defense person ... what you call a "bear arms" person (although I do not own any firearms -- I do carry a work-issued Sig Sauer 9mm).

I have no problem with and in fact support: background checks, non-restrictive licensure, gun safety. I do take issue with the fact that I cannot own whole categories of firearms here in my home state of Massachusetts. In the Navy I was trained on and proved expert with the M16 rifle. I have no need for the fully automatic military version of this equipment, but I very much enjoyed my range time using it in single shot mode at targets out at 300-500 yards. Why am I not allowed this sporting use of the non-military (i.e. non-automatic) version of this rifle? Simple sporting use. Why?

@sarabee1995 I'll tell you why. Because your little time getting your power fix at a range isn't more important than dead human beings. That's why. It's why we have laws related to driving speeds. Anyone with the slightest bit consideration or concern about others would understand that. This Oregon law is about background checks and gun safety so others don't needlessly die. As a man who doesn't need a firearm to feel strong, and nothing personal, but I give two shits about your gun needs or those who are so weak that without their guns they're lost puppies. Sorry. Screw that.

@sarabee1995 I just don't agree that the right to bear arms should include the right for drunken rednecks to own fully automatic assault rifles, and I don't get people who do. The whole point of the second Amendment was to create armed forces in this country, which we did. The army, the navy, the Marines, etc.

I guess I could have phrased it more respectfully, but I do feel very passionately that the gun rights absolutists are a major part of the problem.

@LordShadowfire We've already agreed on this, right? Next ...

Ummm, no. The 2nd has nothing to do with the Army or the Navy. Quite the contrary. I'm not even sure where that thought comes from.

Aren't the absolutists on both sides of most issues a major part of the problem?

@sarabee1995 Well, gee whiz, maybe from literally the first four words of the amendment? Have you ever read it?

Do you understand what a well-regulated militia is? I'll give you a hint. It's not some random who wants to use an AR-15 to shoot deer.

@Ynotisay My enjoyment of sport shooting has nothing to do with a power fix. I love when one person who has no clue about another person's choice of sport seeks through utter ignorance to explain the first person's passion.

I live a life of precision. I don't participate much in team sports. But I am active in several individual sports. When I practice my taekwondo and I target a strike on my rubber man's temple but see my heel strike land an inch off to one side or another, I'm disappointed and driven to practice harder. When I dial in a target laying prone on the ground, calm my breathing, relax my muscles and slowly release a round downrange and see it off target. I'm disappointed and driven to practice harder.

You may not understand my choice of sports. You may not like my choice of sports. But I challenge you to explain to me what the legal basis is for you to deny me my choice of sport as described here. What power, granted to our government by the people, allows it to say to me, a free person, that I cannot pursue either of my chosen sports in a safe manner.

Government in the US does not have unlimited power as it does in most European democracies. Government power in the US was very intentionally limited by our founders, with good reason. Here in the US, the rights of the People are not granted by the Constitution.

Rather, the power of the government to infringed on the pre-existing rights of the people is limited by the Constitution. It's an important distinction that we should not forget.

Does this make life in America messier? Yup. Sure does. Does it put more responsibility on us as citizens? Yes sir. But this is the legal framework we have. If we want to change it and grant our government more authority to control our lives, more power to restrict our choices, then we should do so very carefully. I am not in favor of any move toward more authoritarianism.

@LordShadowfire Yes, I do know what a well-regulated militia is. And I know what it is not. It is certainly not the US Army or the US Navy, both of which pre-dated the 2nd Amendment.

@sarabee1995 on this point I don't see your logic. Could the 2nd Amendment not have been intended to protect institutions that already existed?

@LordShadowfire I am very sad to see you making broad negative statements about @sarabee1995 because you disagree about something, important as the issue is. You are both good people, and fighting among ourselves is not going to make anything better. This seems like a chance for reasoned and friendly dialogue with someone who sees things differently, which is a rare and precious opportunity in today's world.

@SW-User well said.

@SW-User You know me well Professor! It's been quite a few years. Yes, I do enjoy and thrive on reasoned discourse. I wish more people did. I am quite sure I had several professors back at Brown breathe a big sigh of relief when I graduated and moved on from their offices with my incessant questions and debate! 🤣

To your point, could the referenced to a well regulated militia have referred to the then standing Army or the established Navy. Well, no, because at the time the word militia was not abiguous the way it is today. But let's say that it did refer to the Army and the Navy. The stating of a reason for the restriction of the government's power to restrict the pre-existing right of the People to keep and bear arms does not in any way lesson that restriction of governmental authority.

This has to be viewed within the overall framework of the US Constitution. There is not a single right or freedom that is "granted" by the Constitution. All of our rights are inherent in our being a free people (i.e. John Locke, The Natural Man, etc). The government was formed by us. We pre-exist and supersede it, not the other way around. And we granted it only limited powers through a vote that required a super-majority. Changing government is necessary from time to time, but should be rare, slow, and difficult, precisely because it is so dangerous and the tendency of small majorities (i.e. 51-55%) is to consider themselves so often to be the voice of the people ("the tyranny of the majority").

Lord Shadow doesn't like and, in fact, has obvious distain for my choice of sports. I get it. I'm sure there are choices he's made in his life at which I would look askew. But there must be a mechanism where we can live safer without undue restrictions on either of our rights and freedoms.

As for the specific gun issue, I think I've adequately presented my view. I look forward to reading others. Thanks for jumping in. You are ALWAYS welcome in my chats. :)

@SW-User Yeah, you're right. I tend to get very sarcastic when discussing certain issues, because the answers seem pretty obvious to me.
@sarabee1995, I could have been less of a dick about countering your arguments. It's just that when you appear to have a poor comprehension of the second Amendment or its history (and respectfully, you do), my first instinct is to be a little smartass.

@LordShadowfire No apology necessary. You've built up enough goodwill with me in past discussions. 🙂

@sarabee1995 Thank you for overlooking it. I hope in the future we can discuss this like civilized folks.

@LordShadowfire Or with equal doses of sarcasm. I'm good with that as well ... sometimes prefer it. On here I've made a huge effort to eliminate sarcasm because most people just don't get it. But I love the genre of humor and use it in debate all the time to great effect in real life. In the written word it's just ... more challenging.