Protesters gather for pro-gun rally in Salem
SALEM, Ore. – Opponents of gun control rallied at the state Capitol Saturday to stand up against what they see as an infringement on their rights.
The rally was part of a national movement dubbed “Guns Across America.” Many of the hundreds who attended carried their own guns to show their opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed gun laws.
Many protesters who spoke with KATU News said they felt misunderstood.
“I have the right to defend my children,” said Becky Myers, who is not a gun owner but supports gun ownership. “We have the right to have them,” she said.
“It’s because we love this country,” said Micky Garus. “We’re here to protect what our founding fathers wrote down.”
"I think there's a certain section of America that does misunderstand," said Tim Denny. "I hesitate to use pro-gun, but freedom-loving. I don't think guns are the problem. They're just tools like anything else."
Diana Bowem stood alone, carrying a sign that said “The NRA is out of touch with humanity.” Bowem said she’s a gun owner, but doesn't believe assault rifles should be available for sale.
“I don’t want anybody to have weapons of mass destruction,” she said. “Assault weapons are out of bounds. They’re just out of bounds. Why do we need weapons like that?”
Police estimate more than 1,000 people attended the rally. There were no arrests.
Chicago and Detroit have the most gun laws, yet the highest homicide rates. Maybe I am missing something here.
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Bullet_to_the_Head_of_the_NRA
Hey folks there was a mass shooting (statistically a mass shooting is where at least 4 are shot) in New Mexico this morning-5 dead; 3 were children at the hands of a teenage boy(15). Each of victims had been shot multiple times with an assault rifle - that family sure was safe having that gun in the house (extra safe)! Did you know that the person who gets shot, 90% of the time knows their shooter? Something to think about...
 @LifeisGOOD007 Semi-automatic = Not an assault rifle.
 @PleaseBeSmart  @LifeisGOOD007 dead is DEAD!
 @OregonOrator LMFAO. OregonOrator, you have repeatedly made me LOL tonight. Thank you for that. =D
@LifeisGOOD007Â If "dead is DEAD!" is your issue, then pray tell, point us to all your angry posts raging about the automobile.
 @LifeisGOOD007 I wasn't disputing the definition of dead.
110 people die EACH DAY on the nation's highways on average. The only reason I can think of as to why we don't see the anti-gun nuts raging against the automobile is because they're too lazy to walk to the next tree-sitting rally. Or because their welfare office and OMMP pusher is on the other side of town.
 @OregonOrator Why are you talking about cars?! A car's use is for getting from point A to point B-- i.e. travel. A gun's use is for killing. You are conflating these issues and it simply is not logical. Please take a debate class or a philosophy course -it'll help you to truly argue a point.Â
@LifeisGOOD007 There are 62 million registered vehicles in the US. There are 110 deaths on average PER DAY caused by said vehicles for a total of 40,150 per year.Â
Â
Depending on which source you believe, there are about 300 million guns in the hands of Americans. In 2010 there were 11,078 homicides caused by an idiot with a gun.
Â
You do the math.
Â
I ask again, why aren't you anti-2nd amendment nuts railing against the automobile?
Â
If body count is your argument (and judging by all your posts, it seems to be) then why is your anger so misplaced?
Â
 @OregonOrator  @LifeisGOOD007 Cars have nothing to do with guns ---why are you talking about cars?
@LifeisGOOD007 Oh, so now you are defending an object that ISN'T EVEN DESIGNED FOR KILLING but yet KILLSÂ EXPONENTIALLY MORE people ON ACCIDENT than an object that may be designed for killing on purpose??.
Â
Which one do you want laying around waiting to get in the hands of the wrong person??
Â
hahahaha Try again you amateur!
@LifeisGOOD007 I am merely asking the question - if body count is your concern, why aren't you protesting the the automobile eery time there is a wreck that takes lives?
Â
It's not that hard. I realize it takes a bit of critical thinking on your part, but you can do it.
Â
"Conflating". hahaha
 @OregonOrator  @LifeisGOOD007 You are still conflating OregonOrator!! Look up the word conflate (buy a dictionary). Cars have nothing to do with guns- you are just trying to muddy the waters with completely illogical thinking. You sweet pumpkin pie are the amateur!
Sure pick the only old gal there that knows nothing about semiautomatic firearms or her constitutional rights, to focus on. Funny, she enjoyed her first amendment right to its fullest, yet wants to deny others their second amendment rights. Â Without the second amendment the first would cease to exist.
Sorry folks, Inconvenience is not Infringement. And you shouldn't use the word Infringe when you really mean Impinge. The classic definition of Infringe is actually "to abolish or cancel." Justice Scalia ruled that the Second Amendment isn't "unlimited." Regulation is Constitutional and it is coming. You can either join those of us who are gun violence survivors at the table and come up with some really good compromises we can all live with, or you can just wallow in your self-pity and continue to sound like people who shouldn't have access to guns. Good luck with that.
@Bill Survivor Sounds like you were unable to defend yourself and are now an embittered old liberal clinging to your notion that a president can change constitutional law with a sweep of his mighty mulatto hand.
Â
You should have had a gun and been trained how to use it.
@Bill Survivor Infringment, "The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract."  The second amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A ban on semi-automatic rifles or parts thereof is clearly an Infringment of the second amendment.
 @Bill Survivor So because you got shot. I should not be allowed to protect my household? Leave the gun laws alone. And put security in the schools. A bigger gun free zone sign is not going to accomplish anything. Neither is taking away guns from law abiding citizens
 @Bill Survivor Is "classic definition" code for "the one you favor?" Because "encroach upon" doesn't fit your opinion? =/Â
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Bill Survivor Justice Scalia isn't the final say.Â
Actually, it doesn't really matter what he thinks .Â
I think what you mean is Scalia "said" rather than "ruled"
When you see a scene like this from third world countries, you think "extremist" or "insurrectionist", but when they show up waving weapons on the steps of our own capitol, somehow this is now called "freedom"? Â Sorry, but I see this as an armed threat against our legislators. Â
Â
They are there to oppose commonsense reforms (like requiring ALL gun sales to have a background check). Â Â Meanwhile, the pro-gun extremist lobby here in Oregon is introducing house bill 2377, which would allow convicted drug abusers to legally carry concealed handguns. Â
Â
This isn't the country we wish to see. Â
@Baldr Odinson
This was simply a matter of people exercising their first amendment right in support of their second amendment right. Some also exorcised their right to open carry which is completely legal in the state of Oregon. No threats were made to anyone.
Background checks do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, but. If there was a way to do the background check without retaining personal info (make the check and the buyer retains all the paperwork) I would be all for it.
Rember you have nothing to fear from a good guy with or without a gun.
 @Wade  @Baldr Around 35-40% of guns used in crime were acquired through a private sale or transfer without a background check. And in the 14 years since background checks went into force for licensed dealers, over a million sales have been rejected due to the buyer having a violent background, warrant for arrest, or mentally ill.Â
Â
As for your argument that conceal carry individuals are only "good", check out how many have committed murder: Â http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
 @Baldr Odinson Come on now Baldr, do we need to go over these statistics again? Because they're so far in favor of CHL holders that I'm surprised you dared to use this argument again. If we must, I'll get out my calculator and school you again though.
 @Baldr Odinson Also none of these "reforms" would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
 @Baldr Odinson This was nothing more than a peaceful demonstration. I'm really glad you see an armed threat though, because that's exactly what it will be if push comes to shove.
 @PleaseBeSmart Your threats don't scare me, Extremist.  People like you shouldn't be armed.
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Baldr Odinson A vast majority of those were suicides
Â
 @Baldr Odinson It's called "separating my emotions from issues which demand logic." You should try it some time. But if you insist, I'll reword my last sentence to "No one else is in pretty much any danger from someone deciding to shoot themselves." It is not a public safety issue, as homicide certainly is.
 @PleaseBeSmart Thinking only of yourself, I see.
 @Baldr Odinson Less tragic? No. Less relevant to "gun violence?" Absolutely. How someone chooses to kill themselves is of no relevance to general public safety. I am in pretty much no danger from someone deciding to shoot themselves.
 @Twistthewrist  @PleaseBeSmart The VPC report comes from CDC data, as they explain.  Try reading sometime.
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Baldr Odinson Well of course. He has to fluff the numbers somehow. Otherwise people might start looking at the real issues in our society (like mental health and suicide prevention as a whole).
 @Baldr Odinson  @PleaseBeSmart No, your data does not come from the CDC. As you quoted from your own blog "Today the ViolencePolicy Center announced a new report, which illustrates my point quite nicely" which you attached the link "http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf" the your data is coming from a private non-profit venture. This group has no affiliation with the CDC as already proven by the .gov link I provided.
 @PleaseBeSmart Oregon is one of 12 states, but the other states are almost there too.  And, yes, I count suicides by firearm. Do you consider those less tragic somehow, or somehow irrelevant to the issue of gun violence? If so, you are deluding yourself about the dangers.
 @Baldr Odinson Sooo, you're picking out Oregon rather than nationally, and including suicides, yes?
 @Twistthewrist  @PleaseBeSmart You aren't looking state-to-state, then, or you aren't counting all gun-related fatalities.  The numbers used in the blog post come from CDC data.
 @Baldr Odinson  @Twistthewrist  @PleaseBeSmart Actually your link is to YOUR blog that references the VPC (not CDC) which is a non-profit anti-gun research establishment. Unlike you, I do check government sources (like the CDC). According the them (CDC) motor vehicle deaths STILL outnumber firearms. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm). Feel free to look at the bottom of the page that shows when it was last updated (hint it was REALLY recent).
 @Baldr Odinson    Well, we just know that is totally untrue: I just went to your âsourceâ: personally, I find ANY âsourceâ that is biased in only one direction to be, well, suspicious to say the least. Yours is from a blog called âCeasefire Oregonâ, and from the âViolence Policy Centerâ another advocate of strict gun control/removal.That alone should be a heads up. The other problem is that they claim the most recent stats are from 2009, totally untrue as I posted a website link (un-biased, I might add) with stats from 2012! So,feel free to try again, this time, maybe have some un-biased information. Oh, and thank the Constitution that you have the right to your own opinion and to express it here. If your biased opinions prevail, that may not be true for long.
 @Baldr Odinson Are these just homicides or homicides + suicides? Because I've gotta say... I'm not too worried about killing myself. :)
 @Twistthewrist  @PleaseBeSmart The numbers come from the CDC, not me.  Or do you consider the CDC to be "extremist" too?  Here's a review:  http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-by-gun-now-higher-in-10-states.html
 @Baldr Odinson  @PleaseBeSmart Oh, struck a nerve today didn't we? I'm guessing you are just jealous that our turnout was so much larger then yours was on Jan. 8th 2012 (http://www.kval.com/news/local/A-quiet-moment-for-thosed-killed-by-gun-violence-136918103.html?tab=video&c=y). Some might consider you the "extremist" with your views of systematically cutting our constitution down layer by layer, all the time claiming immunity by it as well. As for your claim about more deaths by firearms then automobiles, well most of us on here already know you like to come up with your own numbers. Who's "paranoid" now? You can want all the backgrounds you want, evil and ill will continue be plague humanity and carry out there plans. All we can do is maximize our defense and make ourselves a harder (less desirable) target.
 @Baldr Odinson Well, there goes a big chunk of our military then.
 @Baldr Odinson What a peaceful demonstration? What was extreme about it. I would bet nobody "waved a gun". And it is our freedom to own guns that makes us free. There is nothing common sense about outlawing assault rifles, 10 round clips, or all semi automatic weapons. And if a person who drinks Jack Daniels can have a CHL. Why not a pot smoker?
 @givupongod Neither should have a gun.  Sadly, it's not against the law to be drunk or under the influence while carrying a concealed gun with a permit, in Oregon.
 @Baldr Odinson Baldr: And that is for YOU to decide? Wow. I guess there are other wanna-be-demi-gods out there. YOU are the dangerous one, not law abiding, honest good Americans who only want to live and retain what we work so hard to get, and protect our families: YOU, it would seem, want to TELL US ALL HOW WE SHOULD LIVE AND WHAT WE CAN AND CANâT DO, and those LIKE you are what our Founding Fathers wrote about in our Constitution; It is people like you we are protecting ourselves against by owning guns. DONâT YOU DARE TRY TO TELL ME I CANâT (or shouldnât) OWN A GUN!
 @Baldr Odinson You didn't answer the question. Having it on me? Being in the same room as a firearm? The same house? Can they be in a safe? Unloaded? Should I leave my home when I get high? Specifics, Baldrdash!
 @PleaseBeSmart You shouldn't be armed.
 @Baldr Odinson Are we talking about physical possession of a firearm? Or just having it generally around them? Because I was high last night and there were/are 8 guns within a few feet of me. I wasn't messing with them though. :)
 @givupongod Are you really trying to justify letting drunks and high people have guns?  Seriously? Â
 @Baldr Odinson  Baldr Odinson 99.9% of drunks and pot smokers who own guns never shoot anybody. So why can't they have a gun? Mass shooters are never drunk or high on pot. So where is the danger to society? You are the extremist backing the socialists who want to take all our rights away and enslave us.
 @Baldr Odinson Oh, and I just read the hb2377 you mention:Â
Â
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measures/hb2300.dir/hb2377.intro.html
Â
It says:Authorizes issuance of concealed handgun license to person convicted or diverted for certain marijuana offenses in another jurisdiction, if conviction or diversion is equivalent to conviction or diversion that does not operate as bar to obtaining license under Oregon law. Expands class of marijuana convictions that do not operate as bar to obtaining concealed handgun license to include misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana that was committed before possession of less than one ounce was made punishable solely by fine under Oregon law.
Â
So, someone who was punished and fined for having less than one ounce of marijuana can carry....Yeah, real criminals there, when people who rob, steal and drink while they drive are out there really causing problems for others.
 @angelgabe  @Baldr Odinson The decision actually rests with the Sheriff and the County Court. Â
Â
In Linn County, one of the questions that is a basis for denial is:
"I Have never been to court on any charge involving drugs"Â
You have to declare that you have NOT.Â
Â
Didn't say convicted, just have you been there.
If you have a drug charge, you won't get a permit from a sheriff. Â
Feel free to try however.Â
 @Baldr Odinson If you have problems with what our Constitution and the men who drafted it say, then by all means LEAVE THE USA!!! Iâm all for that, and Iâm sure I can even come up with a few bucks to make it happen!
Freedom does NOT stop at only the things YOU think it should, but all things that have been around this Nation since itâs inception, and that INCLUDES GUNS. We have the right and indeed the obligation to stop our government from removing those freedoms from us. Youâll take a much different stance when they come for something you feel is a ârightâ of yours, like the âright' to drive a car, or shop where you please. If the government takes away one right from decent honest good people, the removal of others are only a step away. Think Iâm exaggerating? Just wait.
 @Baldr Odinson leave then