Burdick says she canceled town hall after threats
»Play Video
SALEM, Ore. - State Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, says she's creeped out by the video posted on YouTube of her doing chores around her home.
The anonymous poster wrote that Burdick lied about why she canceled a town hall on gun control at Portland State University.
KATU News asked Burdick Wednesday why she said there was a scheduling conflict when the video shows she stayed at home.
She said her office has been getting thousands of threatening and hostile emails about antigun bills.
She sent KATU News a few examples. One talked about lynching, another mentioned Hitler and Stalin. Burdick says it would have been foolish to hold a town hall in that kind of environment on a college campus.
"I've had town halls crashed by the extremist gun lobbyists before," she said. "They do not make life pleasant when they do that. They're disruptive and rude, and I didn't want to subject the students at Portland State to that kind of behavior."
She said there will be other town hall meetings scheduled.
Burdick called the police after she saw the YouTube video.
Burdick - you got caught with your pants down. Man-up and admit it. It's amazing to me that people like you get voted in over and over. Says a lot about the liberal voter.
Consider this: If Joe Sixpack were to spew out some excuse for not showing up to work, and was caught goofing off around the house, do you think he would avoid being fired? Consider that one for a moment...
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. | Atlas Shrugged P2C3
It is scary how much of what Rand wrote about is happening now. But there's no one whose going to return us our income taxes; there's no promised land to run to. There's just Eddie, struggling on the tracks trying to keep it going, but I don't think there's any hope left for this country.
@Ella-J There is always hope, and I think the Progressive may have cooked their bacon this time around. They are basically lying at PERS reform, and will laugh all the way to the bank. They are so confident with their voter base now they can bring on things like gun control, etc. etc. There is no excuse for threatening violence, but you will always get those kinds of threats when you start monkeying with the Constitution. Next time you get a voters envelope in the mail remember all these things. That is how we can get hope back.
As an activist to prevent gun violence, I also get threats of violence from the pro-gun crowd, all the time. Â A week ago, one of them left a message saying "we'll shoot your ass if you go to central Oregon." Â It's disappointing that they would choose to make threats instead of engaging in rational debate. Â They only do their cause a disservice. Â And when a legislator like Burdick submits rational legislation to keep guns out of criminal hands and limit their destruction on our communities, it's par for the course that pro-gun extremists will make threats. Â I urge Burdick to stay the course and continue working hard for our safety. Â I'd like to thank her for her bravery in doing so.
So, Jas-, I mean Baldr, exactly how will the legislation Burdick submits "keep guns out of criminal hands and limit thier destruction on our communities"?
It is sad that some resort to threats, but I also fail to see how more laws will make criminals change. Again, there is not as much emphasis put on controlling the menally unstable, as there is trying to control responsible gun owners. I have no heartache with some more stringent background checks, but those checks again do not cgeck criminals, nor do they apply to the mentally unstable unless changes are made.
@JJ97477Â Sure, laws won't stop criminals or "make them change." So why have laws against murder if murders still happen, or laws against speeding if people still speed, etc etc. Â Perhaps you want anarchy? Â The point is that laws are not written so that criminals can approve of them. Â They are written to give a means of prosecuting them and to codify expected behavior and safety.
Background checks for sales from licensed dealers have prevented sales to 1.5 million prohibited persons in 14 years. Â Here's some stats: Â http://pinterest.com/pin/22447698114827763/ Â Likely it would be similar for private sales, too.
Measuring to get comparable numbers requires measuring consistently across all sets of data in order to compare numbers. To use this "Age-Adjusted" measure in order to get the results you want, is not using consistent measuring methods in ordr to compare different studies. I't like measuring 1-10 year olds and extrapolating those number to the whole, whole another study uses overall rates (like ALL of the other stats people are using.. Your willingness to use different methods decreases your believability in your numbers.
@JJ97477Â @Baldr OdinsonYou apparently didn't read the link I sent, JJ. Â You purposely make assumptions that aren't there (which most people call "deception"). Â Let me explain in simplistic terms for you: Â Each community or subgroup will have slight variations in their average age. Â In order to compare between them, for ANY sort of data, you have to adjust the values, or "normalize" them, in order to avoid error in the statistics. Â What you call "skewing" is preventing bias, not introducing it. Â
@Baldr Odinson @JJ97477 Indeed, age-adjusting is important for things like mortality rates because it's based on the likelihood as to when you will die.  But NOT when you try to skew the plain data that is easy to compare based on rates per 100,000.  Gun violence is not based on age-relation, but pure and simple numbers.  You can't use one method for one argument, and the use an entirely different method in another argument for the same thing.  Now THAT is called deception.  You wouldn't want to be accused of that, now would you??
@JJ97477Â @Baldr OdinsonEducate yourself "JJ". Â Age-adjusting *removes* error by allowing communities of different age structures to be compared without skewing the data. Â It's done to pretty much any statistical analysis of health or mortality data. Â Read more here: Â http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/ageadj.htm
@Baldr Odinson  Sorry...  Nice try.  That report uses "Age-Adjusted" data.  That way, they can skew the data using certain age groups to sway the averages.  There are fluctuations in age groups that are normal. Sometimes up, sometimes down.  When you alter the data using certain age groups, you invalidate the data.  (Oh look, in 20-30 year old's the rates are up this year, must be a trend!!).  Comparing simple rates per 100,000 citizens (apples to apples when comparing everywhere else), the rate increased slightly and is now back down .  Again, I am NOT against increasing background checks, but all the laws being proposed ignore the mental stability issue that goes hand-in-hand with this issue.   Even the article takes that 25% increase, and extrapolates it to national numbers and proclaims that more background checks MIGHT cause as much as a 25% decrease.  A pretty far-fetched projection.  Go for the added background checks, but unless you deal with the mental instability of folks, you still have folks out there that can snap, with or without a gun. Additionally, there are plenty of other laws that are NOT being enforced.  Sure, let's increase the background checks, but let's NOT stop there as if it will fix everything.  Fix the mental issues and enforce the existing laws.
@Baldr Odinson Dude you just vomit nonsense on a grand scale. Does it bother you that everyone, including some liberals I know  think you're a complete loon?
@JJ97477Â Sure, they may not always be prosecuted when they attempt to buy a gun and fail, but the point is that they *fail*. Â Around 45% of guns used in crimes are received by the criminal through a private transfer, which currently needs no background check here in Oregon or most states.
When Missouri repealed it's private gun sale background check law, gun homicides jumped by 25%: Â http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/13/1589161/study-gun-homicides-increased-25-percent-after-missouri-background-check-laws-repeal/
OK, so background checks work, for those that go through background checks. Criminals don't. Again, as I said, I'm not against more background checks. But they are ignoring the mental side of the issue, as if further restricting the background checks will fix everything. Also, the numbers I've seen suggest that when a non-approved person attempts to buy a gun and is denied, that there is no preseuction, or very little, even though the lawas are there! Enforce the laws already there and I think you will get greter results.
@Baldr Odinson What is rational debate Baldr? Is it your way or no way? Use reason, do you want only criminals to possess firearms. Please, Please find some common sense in the stuff you put out. There are far more worthy causes that would save far more lives that the stuff you talk about all the time. You and I both know that if the Progressives gain an inch they will take a mile.
@Baldr Odinson And yet you still show up to fulfill your obligations rather than going home and kicking back. I would think someone in fear for their safty wouldn't be wandering around outside, getting the mail and bringing in the trash can.Â
@Baldr Odinson: Proof, please. Dropbox/Instagram/YouTube/{insert thousands of other online media places here} awaits your evidence.
I won't hold my breath.
@Thomas J. Miller Some examples of threats against me, from when I stopped allowing anonymous comments at my blog because of them:  http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/10/anonymous-comments-will-no-longer-be.html
@Thomas J. MillerSome more examples for you, and a writeup on this article: Â http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-pro-gun-threats-and-insults.html
@Baldr Odinson Oh quit trying to stump for your blog you sissy.
No one said you had to share your number or other contact info - just the content. That is, if you have any.Â
No idea what sheltered world you live in, but I've been online continuously since 1995, and off-and-on since 1990. Even back then, threats were as common on USENET as nudie pics were in alt.binaries. They're just as common today.Â
The Internet is a harsh place - wear a helmet.Â
Now - if you have threatening voicemails or suchlike, let's see/hear  'em.
@Thomas J. Miller I'm not sharing my email or voicemail with you, Thomas.  Sorry you find it so hard to believe that there are extremists making threats, but it happens regardless of your belief.  And, no, we don't *all* get such threats. If this is typical for you to get threats of violence, as common as "spam", then I worry about you.  Most people don't have to worry about such things.
Three bits:Â
1) blog comments are worth their approximate weight in electrons (namely, pretty much nothing). This is because anonymity coupled with the Internet 'art' of trolling make them worthless at best. There is no way to tell if they are credible, made-up (by anyone), or whatever. I'm looking for voicemails, video, or something that is far harder to fake.
2) We *all* get those comments, no matter what ideology/politics/viewpoint a given blog has. You toss 'em out along with the pharm and brand-name-knockoff spam.
3) I'm sure Miss Ginny is intimating that she has had threatening phone calls, (physical) mail, or suchlike - otherwise the cops wouldn't be interested.Â
But PSU is a "gun free" zone. Aren't those suppose to be really safe places (sarcasm)? She's crying foul because someone did some investigative reporting and found her initial claim to be false. Ironically a PRO-gun event was held, without incident or death, by some of those "extremist gun lobbyists." Clearly she is dodging her responsibility to her constituents because she might find out they don't agree with her agenda.Â
No one is taking your guns, gun nuts. Well, we do want to take your assault rifles and mass murder accessories. Absolutely no excuse to keep those. (sorry this ain't 1800 and you aren't going to fight off a modern equipped police state if it's a commin').Â
Keep your fun rifles and hand guns. Show some reason and get rid of the favorite tools of the mass shooters.
@iloveeugene I would have liked you but sorry, it has to be all or nothing.  Hand guns are the majority tools for gun crime and let's not forget crooks hacking down Biden approved shotguns to carry under their coats to knock off a Circle K. So why don't we want all of them?  So sick of you half-asses giving the nutz some slack.
@iloveeugene Are you willing to give an iron clad guarantee that is as far as it will go? Would you bet your life on it, I don't think so.
@iloveeugene Common sense gun laws are already in place and need to be enforced. We aren't trying to get any of those repeled. We are drawing a line to say enough is enough.1) Picking a particular type of firearm isn't going to stop criminals from posessing them, only the law abiding .2) Modern sporting rifles account for a very small amount of crime, far more killings are perpatrated with handguns, If we give in on modern sporting rifles, handguns will be the next thing you want. 3) background checks only apply to law abiding gun owners, criminals don't get them.Â
I wonder if the 'mention' of Hitler & Stalin was a comparison between their taking guns away from their citizens and Burdick's legislation to limit guns...if not takethem away...quite yet? That's fair First Amendment Speech as far as I'm concerned.Â
Its amazing that someone who is elected by the people. To represent the people. Will allow the people to make their views known. Personally i think she made up a lame excuse to cancel the meeting & I wouldn't be suprised if she had something to do with the video of herself. Great way to block the 2nd Amendment supporters from making their thoughts public.
Come on, all of you who donât believe in the government taking our guns. Think! donât be so stupid and threaten or use violence! That will only cause MORE talk and actions regarding taking our guns away.Â
I am never going to be willing for my government or any other to take my rights to own a gun away. But at the same time, I will never use the actual force Iâm entitled to by my constitution to fight or cause violence until, and only IF, it actually comes to them arriving at my door to do so.Â
Those of you doing this kind of thing are only going to make the talk now into actual actions later if you donât stop being so stupid by your immature actions!!!!!
@angelgabe I would add that threats especially anonymous threats are usually made by cowards that would never confront someone one on one. As you said threats only make the situation worse and they are immature at best. I say instead of making threats, stay calm and mark your ballot accordingly.
@souptonuts @angelgabe ESPECIALLY: mark your ballots accordingly!
This has been stressed by me and others emphatically for some time. Stop voting like you always do. Vote new ones in EVERYÂ election until they get the message: " we wonât be bullied by those WE ELECT TO WORK FOR US"!
@angelgabe @souptonuts AND voting differently may initially be cause for a little uneasiness for some folks, but if we can somehow get this state back on a prosperous path instead of a greedy by few path the rewards will be ten fold. Vote for people that can make a difference. Re-electing the same old tired corrupt politicians time and time again just compounds the problem. There are reams of evidence of corruption, let's get it stopped.
@angelgabe: Until I see a credible police report and some evidence, coupled with the fact that her "scheduling conflict" ended up as a lie? I'm calling shenanigans on her latest excuse.
@angelgabe I wouldn't be surprised if those 'threats' were made up (she has established herself as a liar after all) or from the gun grabbers trying to make the few sane people left in Oregon look bad.
 @Ella-J @angelgabe I do see the point of view of those posting here who indicate she might not have been completely honest (she is after all, a politician)!
I believe that their suppositions might very well be accurate.Â
And just exactly HOW ARE we to protect ourselves from a âpolice stateâ WHEN it happens? Â (to iluveugene âthis aint 1800...â) Every battle for freedom and against tyranny has been fought, and WON by those with WEAPONS!!!! To give them up for an imagined elimination of horrible actions on the part of a few criminals or crazies who will ALWAYS find a way to do what it is they want to do with or without a law against it, is the height of illogical reasoning.Â
There are laws against illegal drugs. Have they been eliminated? No. Laws against speeding; eliminated: No. Laws against drunk drivers; eliminated: Â No. AND most importantly: LAWS AGAINST CERTAIN PEOPLE FROM HAVING GUNS: ELIMINATED: NO!... I could go on, but you get the picture if you are at all reasonably intelligent.
Taking away MY RIGHT to  own a firearm, whatever type I CHOOSE is taking away MY RIGHTS. PERIOD. I wonât stand for it, and will fight to the death to protect it, WHEN it comes to that, but NOT before.
@angelgabe Well said!!  Thank you!! Â