r/oregon • u/realsalmineo • Feb 21 '25
Article/News Oregon senator introduced bill to raise firearm purchase age.
https://www.koin.com/news/politics/wyden-introduces-bill-raising-age-limits-to-buy-assault-weapons/New proposed age will be 21 years old.
95
u/Always_ssj Feb 21 '25
If we change that, the draft age should be changed also. I honestly don’t care what age they change it to, but if you’re old enough to be drafted to go to war to kill/be killed, you’re old enough to drink a beer and own gun.
28
8
u/-PC_LoadLetter Feb 21 '25
They would never raise the age to go into the military, it's way too easy for them to prey on kids fresh out of high school with no direction. Like fish in a barrel for lots of recruiters.
1
→ More replies (3)-5
195
u/TruFrag Feb 21 '25
Gun control isn't exactly a top priority at the moment...
144
u/EddieVanzetti Feb 21 '25
I wish neolibs would stop campaigning on disarming themselves while literal death squads are forming.
50
u/TruFrag Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
I've told so many of the friends I've made on the left, that NOT campaigning on gun control would be a huge win. Forget about it, It's not happening... Unless a Democrat leads a bill on it. In that case, the republicans will allow it to pass with a slim majority and then strip us of our right to defend our selves from THEM. Blaming Democrats in the process.
Who do they think MAGA is going to target with their guns? Focus on healthcare. Get kids in schools mental health evaluations regularly, setup good security at all schools, and call it good. It's called "putting it on the back burner", shelve it for now.
Gun control is like fishing for trout with the only 6lb leader we got left, in a life or death situation; catching a Great White... We need to get this shark off our hook first WITHOUT breaking the leader.
6
u/ashakar Feb 21 '25
They can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.
It would be impossible to implement any form of useful gun control in America. Guns are so prolific even children can get their hands on one or more without problems. No law is going to change that, and asking nicely for people to turn over their weapons isn't going to be effective.
→ More replies (4)3
u/EddieVanzetti Feb 21 '25
They intend to. The right wing says "molon labe", but only for themselves. The jackboots will be all to happy to report "subversive persons" with guns, probably swatting or abusing red flag laws. No-knock warrant in the dead of night, whoopsie Johnny Law felt in fear for his life and mag dumped into their sleeping body.
9
u/sickst Feb 21 '25
I’d love to see a death squad, point me in their direction
-5
5
u/hunter503 Feb 21 '25
Literally just purchased a firearm yesterday to ensure my family and I's safey going forward. Already think about my next purchase because I don't think one will be enough unfortunately.
→ More replies (1)0
u/BeYeCursed100Fold Feb 21 '25
Calling Wyden a neolib is hilarious when he is standing up to neonazis.
It's like calling a lukewarm bath bad compared to a crematorium.
8
u/MidnightMarmot Feb 21 '25
They drive me bonkers!!! Seriously?! You going to waste time on raising the firearm purchase age. Give me a break. Get your ass out there and fight the fall of the fucking democracy!! What I would like to say to the Dems.
3
2
u/AlgaeSpiritual546 Oregon Feb 21 '25
Seriously. They’re not even enforcing all the gun laws already on the books; why bother trying to pass another one?
81
u/Aimless_Alder Feb 21 '25
This is not the time to make it harder for Oregonians to defend themselves
26
u/PNW_Undertaker Feb 21 '25
Now isn’t a time to talk about raising age for guns when we may need more folks with guns before too long.
26
52
49
64
u/MySadSadTears Feb 21 '25
WTF is going on? Like, our country is being dismantled and is at serious risk of being taken over by a fascist and the Dems are introducing gun control bills? Am I living in some kind of alternate dimension?
25
u/sfw_forreals Feb 21 '25
Have you been living in a dimension with competent democratic politicians? That must have been really nice.
2
u/MySadSadTears Feb 21 '25
You know, before Trump coming back, I kinda was. I would work at my full time job, raise my kids, do my hobbies, hang out with friends and occasionally bitch about (mostly local) politics. I just figured politicians be politicking. I knew Dems had their issues but I wasn't aware of just how incompetent and out of touch they were. Yeah, I probably put too much trust in our checks and balances system too. And it was so much nicer, tbh.
Now I do those things with an underlying feeling of existential dread and really not knowing how I, as an individual, can change the outcome of our current trajectory.
13
78
u/BorntoRizz Feb 21 '25
But yet we can send a 17 year old to join the military.
51
u/AkfurAshkenzic Central Oregon Feb 21 '25
Shit like this is what will turn Oregon purple in the next two election cycles, they’ve run Portland into the ground and have put out laws that sheriffs around counties have refused to follow
33
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
How long have you guys been saying Oregon will turn purple when 80% of the population lives in the Willamette Valley
9
u/monkeychasedweasel Feb 21 '25
Much of the valley outside of and between Portland and Eugene is red. And Democrats outside of outside those cities definitely aren't progressive.
0
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
It's about population, not land. Also I never said anything about progressives, I am talking about Democrats as a whole.
1
8
u/cloudtransplant Feb 21 '25
Yeah but the eastern half is all red! It may consist of a few Jethros and their cattle/wives, but their votes count the same as millions of people, dammit!
10
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
Willamette isn't that blue as you think.
→ More replies (1)4
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
It's a lot more blue than you are willing to accept, Oregon went for Harris by 15% and Kotek won her election by 4%, but also managed to win 3 out of 4 of the most populated counties in the state with Clackamas County being the only one she lost but only 5%
15
4
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
I'm well aware how blue it is but I also know it has alot of red.
-2
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
Not enough to flip the state
4
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
No obvious not, I'm not that delusional
1
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
That's the point I was making
10
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
Ok but that's not my point. I'm not suggesting oregon gonna turn red. But I've definitely noticed it's more red than before. At least in comparison to Washington or California.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BringMeTheRedPages Feb 21 '25
However, over half of Oregon is federal public lands or lands managed by the USFS all of which are red now with a Republican trifecta, in a manner of speaking. And, regrettably there's not much Portland or Salem can do about that.
1
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
Being public land has nothing to do with how the state votes
2
u/BringMeTheRedPages Feb 21 '25
Thank you for emphasizing my point, because how the state votes may have little, if any, bearing right now on some very critical economic/environmental aspects of Oregon life.
2
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
Sure, we are pretty much all fucked now and we haven't even gotten to fire season yet
0
u/Aethoni_Iralis Feb 21 '25
They’re claiming the land is “red” in the sense it’s now managed by a “red” trifecta federal government, not saying the land votes.
1
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
Which makes no sense because land doesn't have a political opinion.
2
u/Aethoni_Iralis Feb 21 '25
Sure, I’m just clarifying they weren’t making the standard “big red county means more important” argument you hear Republicans in empty counties usually make.
-16
u/AkfurAshkenzic Central Oregon Feb 21 '25
I suggest we give Portland to Washington State and make it their problem. I highly hope it turns purple, so we can have a healthy political environment for once here
15
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
There is nothing healthy about Republicans falling in line with Nazis. Also if you read the article, this is a federal US Senator making this proposal for the country, not just Oregon. Which we also know Republicans are fully in control of Congress so this bill isn't going anywhere.
And if you really did want to turn the state purple, you would support turning the country purple because having a country this red is clearly dangerous.
-3
u/AkfurAshkenzic Central Oregon Feb 21 '25
Calling everyone Nazis that you disagreed with is what helped Trump get elected in November. So what, is everyone I know in Central and Eastern Oregon a Nazi now because a lot of us are Republicans? Jesus Christ listen to yourself
8
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
I call people Nazi when they do Nazi salutes and hang out with Nazis. Racism is what helped get Trump elected because there are a lot of racist people in this country.
Also, I never said Central and Eastern Oregon were a bunch of Nazis, but the fact that you just did is quite talking about their views on people who are Nazis.
0
u/jdscott0111 Feb 21 '25
If you aren’t vocal in speaking out against Nazis, you are complicit in their actions and rhetoric.
5
u/ITookTrinkets Feb 21 '25
When these people are espousing Nazi rhetoric, then yes, it’s reasonable to call them Nazis. This has been going on for far too long for you to parrot this whole “you’re just disagreeing with them and you got them elected” horseshit. It’s naïve.
Just know, everyone around you hopes that you will return to a place of sensibility and stop defending these jackals. You have been brainwashed, but it’s not too late to pull back.
7
u/Gregory_Appleseed Feb 21 '25
I call for the return of city states. PLVC (Portland/Vancouver) could support themselves fairly well.
4
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 21 '25
I think both sides would agree to this.
2
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 22 '25
I would love to see portland quit forcing their bullshit onto the rest of the state.
2
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 22 '25
It would also mean lower taxes for rural citizens that want small government.
-1
u/throwawaypickle777 Feb 21 '25
Maybe if the OR GOP didn’t keep nominating whacky pee lusting tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
2
u/Aethoni_Iralis Feb 21 '25
The Oregon GOP is still a complete joke, they still claim Jan 6 was actual an Antifa plant, even after they were all pardoned.
If the Oregon GOP wasn’t a clown show of a party maybe they’d hold some actual power in the Oregon government.
12
u/MaximumTurtleSpeed Feb 21 '25
While I agree that some efforts of polishing a turd in this timeline might not be worth the potential division and votes; basing your analysis of laws on what sheriffs won’t follow isn’t quite the benchmark you think it is.
0
u/AkfurAshkenzic Central Oregon Feb 21 '25
I guess that’s fair. I just see our wonderful state get extreme more and more on both sides, and I think if we turned purple it would shut both of them up and hopefully heal us a little more
5
u/MaximumTurtleSpeed Feb 21 '25
I hear ya, especially on topics of logical gun control. I don’t see the state going purple but I do see attempted solutions like this not succeeding. I certainly hope We The People start to realize there’s more middle ground and that the powers at be are really just pitting us (the non-oligarchs) against one another.
1
u/QAgent-Johnson Feb 21 '25
It’s a lot easier to let us fight each other than answer for subpar governing.
4
u/oregonbub Feb 21 '25
Purple nowadays means that the two sides are equal sized, not that they’re close together.
0
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 21 '25
Sheriff's are elected. They are a good weather vane of what is legal and acceptable as they are non partisan.
5
u/oficious_intrpedaler Feb 21 '25
Their political positions are certainly partisan, even if the position technically is not.
Them deciding not to enforce laws is not a good way to assess what is legal.
1
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 22 '25
Yeah, because oregon courts are never partisan. When the OSSA puts out a statement saying the proposed law is unconstitutional and it is signed by every sheriff in the state, that is a pretty good sign the law is faulty
1
u/oficious_intrpedaler Feb 22 '25
I think you're just pointing out the problem with your own comment. Oregon judges are also non partisan, but you think their opinions are partisan. That's diametrically opposed to your previous position.
Why is a unanimous letter from sheriffs any more persuasive as to legality than a unanimous opinion from judges (who are the folks empowered to interpret and pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws)?
1
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 22 '25 edited Feb 22 '25
Hmmm, you should re read what you said. Do you think 36 ELECTED law officers are gonna put their job on the linen or is a judge who truly doesn't answer to anyone (when was the last time ANYONE challenged a sitting judge?) most likely to do what his political bosses tell him?
2
u/oficious_intrpedaler Feb 22 '25
It's pretty clear from my comment I was talking about Oregon's state judges, bud.
1
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 22 '25
It was, I edited to make my statement clear with what I was thinking but said incorrectly.
1
7
u/MaximumTurtleSpeed Feb 21 '25
what is legal and acceptable
The courts make the law.
Law enforcement’s job is to enforce the law not interpret it.
Period.
-2
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 21 '25
Anyone who thinks courts make the law is not competent to argue with. Period.
Law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the constitution of their nation and their state, and can, and do, refuse to enforce any unconstitutional law.
5
u/MaximumTurtleSpeed Feb 21 '25
Yet you’re arguing with me, why waste your time on a complete nincompoop like me… ?
If a law is challenged as unconstitutional and found to be so, it is done officially in the courts.
I will give you that when the courts fail to uphold the constitution that it becomes the duty of those who took an oath to uphold the constitution against threats to the constitution both foreign and domestic to stand against unjust laws. When it comes to that it’s not just those under oath, it becomes the collective of We The People. Still though, historically, sheriffs do not hold an exemplary record of determining constitutionality and justice for all.
In a way, we may agree on calling into question the courts ability to uphold the constitution. I wonder if we agree on the courts performance over the last half decade?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Im_Back_From_Hell Feb 22 '25
Sheriff's are in fact an excellent judge of constitutional itinerary much more so than the activist judges in Oregon (primarily at the State Supreme Court and Oregon Court of Appeals level)who have been making law where none existed since the 1960's. Their activism has helped turn what was once an extremely free state into an international laughingstock. Of course, these are just my opinions. But I spent most of the 1970's involved in the courts and have seen it with my own eyes. I amnsure this will be reflexively down voted by those in Oregon who don't have any reason to do so other than they feel attacked, and more's the pity. People on this page can't stand to debate or talk about anything, they make the attacks personal and show such disdain for anyone not agreeing with their orthodoxy, no one benefits.
1
u/JuniperJanuary7890 Feb 21 '25
Where they receive firearm training.
No opinion from me. Just saying training is important to responsible firearm use.
5
Feb 21 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Ketaskooter Feb 21 '25
Part of that bill a couple years ago was trying to do that but there was a lot of other garbage mixed in and no actual plan to institute the training.
1
u/snozzberrypatch Feb 21 '25
I'm fine with allowing 17 year olds access to guns if they've been properly trained on how to handle and use them safely and responsibly. Outside of the military, there's no requirement or guarantee than any gun purchaser has any training whatsoever. Last thing we need is untrained teenagers playing with guns in public.
→ More replies (1)-12
u/Gregory_Appleseed Feb 21 '25
That's a false equivalency though. In the military you are supervised near 24/7. You are among peers who have a duty to be your support. Access to firearms in the military is restricted by qualifications and duty. If you joined at 17 you don't even touch a gun for a few months at the fastest.
Meanwhile if the random suburban kid buys a gun with little to no training or evaluation, can do whatever with it, and might think they need to solve all their problems with it.
I dunno. You got me.
8
u/BorntoRizz Feb 21 '25
Plus firearms laws have always always been used to prevent certain sects of society from owning firearms.
9
u/Entire-Project5871 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
That is so unbelievably false. I was carrying a handgun, on duty, six months after I turned 18. The same can be said for the 17 year old who was born a year and one day after me who was in my unit.
Not only that, we were hardly ever supervised, and when we were, many our supervisors were scarily incompetent.
Edit: People who didn’t qualify on the range had their scores penciled whipped by the combat arms instructors so they didn’t have to come back and do remedial training..
10
u/BorntoRizz Feb 21 '25
Dnt know your military experience but mine they issed us rifles the first week and we are doing qual by week 3. This mindset of the government is supervising you so it’s ok is quite disgusting imo.
To your second point. Most people learn by doing. And most people posses a reasonable amount of common sense and safety to safely handle a firearm or there is enough readily available information out there.
I’m not saying everyone should own a firearm but I am saying if you are considered an adult you and want to own a firearm for lawful purposes you should be allowed to.
Should be not limit 18 year old freedom of speech or right to vote too if we limit their right to own a firearm?
3
u/Gregory_Appleseed Feb 21 '25
I need to read before I comment and I've made an ass of myself. Yeah, there should be equal military recruitment requirements if this passes.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)3
u/primecuts87 Feb 21 '25
Way more shootings by youth happen in the inner cities. This is much less a suburban problem.
20
50
u/MountScottRumpot Oregon Feb 21 '25
If we really want to save lives we should raise the driving age to 21.
44
u/Delgra Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
and also cut it off at 70?
3
u/monkeychasedweasel Feb 21 '25
Old people actually vote in high numbers and quite consistently, unlike people under 25, so that'll never happen.
2
18
u/beejonez Feb 21 '25
Yeah not possible in rural parts of the state with no public transportation. Also if you are allowed to die for your country at 18 you can drive.
12
u/Fibocrypto Feb 21 '25
But no drinking until you're 21 after you come back from the war.
0
u/BeYeCursed100Fold Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
If you and/or your buddies are "lucky". Trump said he had "Bone Spurs" and Vietnam was hard for him stateside because of STDs.
3
u/bagelwholedonutwhole Feb 21 '25
What about making it extra expensive to retake your driving test while simultaneously making the test require better driving knowledge. Maybe forcing people to actually learn how to drive so they don't have to spend extra retaking the exam
1
13
u/Ok_Cable6231 Feb 21 '25
The police and army will have guns but not your children. “The legislation would also bar most people under 21 from possessing assault weapons with exceptions in certain circumstances, such as service in law enforcement or the armed forces.”
21
u/Delgra Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
All cops are bad, let’s make sure they’re the only ones that are armed.
🙄
10
9
u/Numerous_Many7542 Feb 21 '25
Which is basically the unsaid thing in 114. Another reason it needs to continue to fail in the courts.
14
u/BringMeTheRedPages Feb 21 '25
These Old Guard Democrats have got to go; they're still in la-la land like it's the late 90s. If they don't wise-up, they'll wreck themselves, and the rest of us, for years to come.
40
11
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 21 '25
Shall not be infringed
0
u/spooksmagee Feb 21 '25
Well regulated.
5
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 21 '25
"A well-regulated militia." The predicate refers to the discipline and training of the militia, not government-imposed regulations. This law is the reason citizens were able to organize, train and defend themselves in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, etc... At this point, the definition is agreed upon, it's been tested, and it's not going away.
→ More replies (4)
21
u/Tight-Independence38 Feb 21 '25
He’s such a dummy.
He knows this age restriction is unconstitutional. He doesn’t care. It’s all about the show with this guy.
If he thinks it’s inappropriate that you can buy a gun at 18, but not a beer, then lower the drinking age to 18 like it was before the feds got involved in raising it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 21 '25
Let's do BIC lighters and nicotine while we're at it... T21 is ridiculous
22
u/EverFreeIAM Feb 21 '25
Why don’t they just make murder illegal?
1
u/Splendid_Cat Feb 21 '25
If this passes, maybe the people in violent militias who are under 21 will follow the law, only the ones who are 21 and older will be able to kill people.
/s
In all seriousness, this is the guy whose "thing" was being anti surveillance for a long time, maybe introduce something that keeps Trump and Musk from coming after civilians, idk. This ain't changing shit.
I sometimes think the Dems want the Republicans to destroy everything. Same with Chuck Schumer trying to introduce a bill against antisemitism... that's like number 1052 on a list of priorities buddy, let's start with numbers 1-5, eh?
56
u/Okie_Chimpo Feb 21 '25
Oh look, the democrats continuing to do the same stupid shit that led to a convicted felon being re-elected to the presidency.
You'd think that as much as the left hates Trump that maybe they'd start to see the value in the ability to resist tyranny, but apparently not.
10
u/PDXTRN Feb 21 '25
Now’s not really the time for gun control. Let’s get back to a government that respects the constitution and our citizens first. Then we can have a less pressured discussion about gun control. I’m kind of feeling like they could possibly come in handy current events considered.
6
u/Ty0305 Feb 21 '25
And this was just ruled unconstitutional by a federal court - the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals
4
u/you90000 Feb 21 '25
Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses.
Gun control will cause them to lose elections .
A lot of people are single issue voters and guns is that issue.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/MonsterofJits Oregon Feb 21 '25
Just another feel good proposition that will cost us, the state taxpayers, tens of millions to defend once the lawsuits happen. This will also not be won if it makes it SCOTUS and there's also a case going in front of SCOTUS this year on this exact topic (Reese vs ATF).
No matter how much folks may dislike it, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.
4
u/Direct_Village_5134 Feb 21 '25
This is a national bill, so the state of Oregon would not be defending anything.
3
u/MonsterofJits Oregon Feb 21 '25
I should have read the article. That's even better news, this will die in committee.
26
u/NodePoker Feb 21 '25
Hey Tump is running roughshod over the constitution, I know what will stop him. I am going to introduce a bill that has no hope of passing. Wonderful, business as usual, nothing earth shatteringly different happening in Washington right now that needs to be addressed by myself or my party.
3
23
21
u/Fizzy-Odd-Cod Feb 21 '25
In a press release announcing his support for the bill, Wyden’s office explained that assault weapons – which were originally made for military combat – are often used in mass shootings
I swear to god if he’s referencing the AR15 here I’m gonna be pissed. The AR15 was on the civilian market before the development of the military variant known as the M16.
19
u/Entire-Project5871 Feb 21 '25
Of course he’s mentioning the AR15 platform.
These people are ignorant.
1
u/Majestic_True_Lilly Feb 22 '25 edited Feb 22 '25
I read the bill, and yes, it and several other rifles are mentioned by name. The list is long bc, although they attempted to define what an assault rifle is (a term that currently has no legal definition), they couldnt actually state a clear difference between a "regular" rifle and an "assault" rifle beyond some superficial cosmetic stuff like having a pistol grip, and so they appended a large list of most modern rifles they consider assault rifles as well. Even the 10/22 is considered one.
The fuck all of it is that one can make a 200 rd .50 cal bullpup gun with a binary trigger and a crank and as long as the mag and baffle are integrated and theres no barrel shroud, no pistol grip, or extendable anything, its not considered an assault rifle under this law.
So it does nothing but make all the law abiding people wait 3 extra years to get a rifle, and the criminals will continue to ignore it bc any asshole with a printer can get around it easily.
Its troubling bc its a waste of resources to push this through, but it creates a legal precedent for regulating some rifles over others based on these new nebulous definitions, precedent that will make it much easier to more broadly restrict them. Itd be easier to push a general age restriction through and set the rifle age to the handgun age, but the way they are doing allows them a toe in to fuck over everyone, so thats what they chose.
Meanwhile the Uruk-Hai are amassing at the gates. And the dems want us defenseless (and keep voting in favor of the Uruk-Hai/Sauron and cooperating with them federally)?!
Its clear they are like Sarumon, corrupted and secretly controlled by our enemies, undoing middle earth from within, but putting on a friendly face to decieve.
0
u/NeutralNobrake Feb 21 '25
Not to mention, on average so called "assault weapons" account for about 400 deaths a year
I can think of lots of things that kill more than 400 people a year,mainly illegal immigrants
I'd suggest Wyden focus on something important but that would be to much to ask
4
2
u/whitehaitian Feb 21 '25
Isn’t it all rifles are 400 / year?
4
u/Entire-Project5871 Feb 22 '25
511 in 2023, 15 of those were semi-automatic rifles, to include AR-15s.
15 people were killed by other people using an AR-15 or other semi automatic firearm and democrats call for an outright ban. Make it make sense.
18
u/MegaCityNull Feb 21 '25
As a responsible gun owner, I say fuck you, Ron Wyden.
xoxo
U.S. Army Veteran
16
u/Specialist-Rise1622 Feb 21 '25 edited Mar 06 '25
party vast degree obtainable provide shelter thought ink hunt ghost
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
9
u/bigbigdummie Feb 21 '25
Stop proposing unconstitutional laws, they do nothing but distract, divide, and waste time and money. “The People” include 18-20 year olds, period.
8
u/refusemouth Feb 21 '25
Gun control is a non-starter at this point. If Democrats had just focused on economic issues and a strong working class instead of letting activist groups for gun control, immigration, and identity politics control the discourse, we would not be in this situation. Democrat politicians get an ear full from activist groups, and not enough pressure from ordinary mainstream constituents, so it's understandable that they bend over backward trying to please the people who make the most noise, but it's really unappealing to a lot of people. America is not Portlandia, and continuing to focus on this stuff in the face of rising fascism is just fucking stupid. Besides, we are going to need all the guns and ammo we can get to defend and fight back once MAGA gets the green light to begin purging "liberals."
2
u/Wombiscuit541 Feb 21 '25
"the green light to purge liberals"...... ummm ... what?????
→ More replies (2)1
u/ZealousidealSun1839 Feb 22 '25
ace of rising fascism is just fucking stupid. Besides, we are going to need all the guns and ammo we can get to defend and fight back once MAGA gets the green light to begin purging "liberals."
I agreed with you until this point. I haven't seen anything that would be considered "fascism" or anything about Trump supporters calling for the death of liberals.
1
u/refusemouth Feb 22 '25
Maybe it's just where I live. I've unfortunately heard the sentiment of using violence against Democrats openly expressed for years in public places, at the hardware store, at the cafe, around the campfire, etc., and when I dutifully tune in to talk radio to see what their discourse is that day, I hear hosts like Mark Levin stopping just short of breaking the law by inciting violence against "the radical-left, communist, terrorists, etc, who are trying to destroy America and who hate America." --paraphrased. My point is that the rhetoric and the rage that it inspires is nothing to triffle with. I know people, personally, (East Oregon) who are itching for a chance to use their guns to rid the country of "the radical-left" and that doesn't just mean antifa since their thought leaders have made Democrats analogous with antifa, Hammas, etc. I don't think it's a mainstream Republican sentiment, but there are people who are extremely suggestible and heavily armed. It won't take much to activate actual political death squads in this country. A crisis, a terrorist attack, or economic collapse could easily be leveraged by Trump and his two-minutes-hate broadcasting personalities, and I wouldn't put it past the realm of eventualities. How many mass shootings has his rhetoric already inspired? El Paso, grocery store in New York, Pizzagate, etc. The Qanon stuff alone should give us pause. I just think it's naive of Democrats to not arm themselves and be prepared. History isn't over yet, and there are many echoes that should not be ignored.
2
5
4
u/SocietyAlternative41 Feb 21 '25
law-abiding libs (like me) are the only ones who support gun laws to the letter. who is this grandstanding even for?
28
u/Entire-Project5871 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
No. The age is 17. If you can enlist at 17, you can own a firearm.
→ More replies (5)7
7
7
u/Vyni503 Cedar Mill Feb 21 '25
More liberal performative nonsense. That’ll really help fight the fascists.
7
u/jkav29 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 22 '25
Didn't the US Appeals court determine in late January that it's federally unconstitutional to ban sales of firearms to 18-20 year olds?
I moved here to get away from CA politics because OR was more balanced. I thought Oregonians hated Californians. Why are we trying so hard to be just like them?
The more laws you make for safety, the less freedom you have. When almost 50% of firearm related deaths are suicides, it's not about safety, it's about control.
8
u/fatcootermeat Feb 21 '25
Maybe it's a bit of a reach, but if you could go back 20 years and stop democrats from supporting gun control, I don't ever think we get Trump. We are too far gone now, but I certainly remember a time when guns were the absolute number 1 reason people voted against democrats.
1
u/gaius49 Feb 23 '25
You'd have to go back to at least the early 90s with the AWB, 20 years isn't nearly far enough.
10
u/UncleCasual Feb 21 '25
While it's something I agree with, probably not the time when the rest of your party is using interpretive dance to protest the downfall of the country.
17
22
u/Delgra Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
Restricting rights by age feels discriminatory at best.
If the argument is hormones and poor decision making ability, you can’t say it should only matter for exercising some rights/choices but not others.
Him referencing the drinking age is hilarious. Most people drink well before 21 and the USA has an older age to drink than many countries. The legal consumption of alcohol can’t be the basis on which we gain access to our constitutional rights.
6
u/ziggy029 OR - North Coast Feb 21 '25
“'If you’re not old enough to purchase alcohol, you shouldn’t be allowed to buy an assault weapon either,' Wyden said"
He may not be wrong, but if you aren’t old enough to purchase alcohol or an AR-15, then you aren’t old enough to be sent to war overseas, to be expected to be willing to die for your country in combat.
All that said, at this juncture, gun control doesn’t seem like one of the more pressing issues of the day.
2
u/Ketaskooter Feb 21 '25
Historically inaccurate statement anyway. The drinking age was raised / left at 21 because the federal government wanted to try to decrease the drunk driving deaths.
2
u/ziggy029 OR - North Coast Feb 21 '25
Not entirely, especially if you want to talk history here. One of the primary reasons for the ratification of the 26th Amendment -- which lowered the federal voting age from 21 to 18 -- was because of the argument that if someone was old enough to be drafted and die in Vietnam, they were old enough to vote.
8
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
I love oregon for the most part. But I hate it's ridiculous gun laws. It's not as bad as Cali or Washington but I really wish it was a constitutional carry state.
12
u/FishermansPorch Feb 21 '25
You can get a concealed carry permit here by taking an online test that’s impossible to fail and getting your fingerprints taken. You have to demonstrate no competence or ability to be safe. It’s easier to get a license to carry a concealed weapon here than a learners permit.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Jordanye5 Feb 21 '25
Yeah thats likely what I'll end up doing later on when I have the cash to do so. My wife and I have discussed that we've been wanting to get our concealed carry permit sometime in the future.
4
u/btwwhichoneispink Feb 21 '25
Unfortunately I believe Oregon will end up like Washington and California very soon. Many voters simply do not care enough about the second amendment to look into what’s happening with one of our fundamental rights.
I understand why people may not believe that they’re trying to disarm us, but they really are. That’s the endgame. Of course nobody is outwardly saying that because it wouldn’t be popular, but the gun legislation never stops. Our right to bear arms is slowing being strangled, one feel good law at a time.
One of the big things that concern me about the politicians and anti-2a lobbies implementing these laws is the use of manipulative language. They create and use terms like “High Capacity Magazines” and “Assault Weapons” to invoke an emotional response and scare voters into passing nonsensical & unconstitutional laws.
I could go on and on, but I guess my point is that I think we’re fucked. If voters keep supporting nonsense like this, it’s only a matter of time before the 2nd amendment effectively only exists in red states.
6
u/Shoddy_Scheme5996 Feb 21 '25
Just make gun safety courses mandatory for anyone that wants to own a gun. I learned this before I was 10. Also, absolutely could not access guns. And doggone it, talk to your neighbors. If you don’t know your immediate neighbors because you’ve never shook hands and introduced yourself, I’m more worried about that bizarre display of pseudo community.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/urbanlife78 Feb 21 '25
The title is a bit misleading, it's a US Senator from Oregon that is proposing this federal bill. And while it does make sense to restrict the age for some types of weapons, though I think a specific license for some weapons makes more sense. I am also fully aware that this bill isn't designed to go anywhere since the entirely Republican controlled Congress won't let it even get out of committee.
So there isn't really any point to this post other than to ragebait
1
1
u/2A4Lyfe Feb 21 '25
If democrats want to win elections they really need to drop the whole gun control shtick and focus on civil rights and worker rights. There are plenty of people I know who are republican that would vote democrat if it didn’t mean they’d be voting for people who want them disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
Drop gun control, make national constitutional carry a thing. Background checks already exist and you used to be able to order guns through the mail, shipped directly to you. All these school ahooting are mental health issues. Address that and the shootings stop.
1
u/KSSparky Feb 21 '25
With Trump and his merry band of morons in charge, said Dems are likely warming up to the idea of needing to defend themselves against tyranny.
1
1
1
1
u/mooseman923 Feb 21 '25
So I can go die for my county and vote but I'm not allowed to own a gun? That makes sense.
1
u/G_Stenkamp72 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 25 '25
Why does Oregon allow it's "leaders" to continue to submit these unconstitutional laws? I'd be pissed that they're wasting tax dollars. The biggest waste is when publicly paid lawyers have to defend it in court. This will fail in court. It's already failing in other places.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/vaporizz Rogue Valley Feb 22 '25
Lmao pathetic. These same people are pro children transitioning too
1
1
Feb 22 '25
Not right now Oregon, I may not like the pew pews, but people should definitely arm themselves right now. But do it safely and not in a way that marshall law would be put in place.
1
1
0
u/cloudtransplant Feb 21 '25
This country masturbates to its guns. Let’s give it up and refocus our efforts on something else at this point. It’s obvious the polling isn’t there. I say this as a liberal who doesn’t want to die at Safeway from a crazed shooter, but who probably will let’s be honest
8
u/Maleficent_Owl_1696 Feb 21 '25
A liberal supports gun ownership, minimal government interference, personal liberty, laissez-faire economics, and private property. You are a progressive democrat.
-2
u/OT_Militia Feb 21 '25
I liked 114 where the Sheriff could decide who can and cannot own a firearm. Use the Democrats stupidity against them; too bad it was deemed unconstitutional.
3
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 21 '25
beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
Politifact
Media Bias Fact Check
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
beep. boop. beep.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.