Good question. I wish there was a place for this kind of dispassionate discussion on the topic, without all the moralizing and self-righteousness that usually derails any kind of helpful conversation.

Would this be similar to the laws/regulations that they are trying to put in place regarding the lower caliber braced weapons?

The fact of the matter is it's a very political judge doing very political things. It happens on both sides. SCOTUS will refer it back to the lower court with the note of "hey idiot, we already said you can't do this".

Site note: it's unfortunate nothing happens to these judges when they make obviously political decisions. I don't care what side of the argument they're on, they need to do their damn jobs.

Owning guns increases your chance of being shot. They are not effective protection.

I've seen elsewhere that a big concern is the involvement of police. It effectively puts cops in charge of who can and cannot buy a firearm. And since Oregon has had a *long* history of racism and terribly bigoted police practices, it's gotten people justifiable concerned. Especially if they're LGBT or POC.

As for mag limits, it's become quite a 'rules for thee, not for me' situation, considering said police are often wholly exempt from legislation like this elsewhere in the country. Doubly so after being able to own such magazines no-problem until only recently.

I disagree with the law and hope it gets appealed. The second amendment isn't about regular self defence, but specifically defence from a fascist government. What Oregon is saying here is that the civilian population does not need these things, but they may still need them to use against the civilian population.

I could get behind banning every weapon from being transported outside of a lockbox, but to actually ban the thing from being bought, sold, or even transfered all together is a whole other ball game.

Edit: Also, to everyone about to respond with some cliche about how revolution is impossible, please take a moment to grasp the reality of the situation. We are a country of 300 million people. We could drown our leaders in spit if we wished to. Revolutions are absolutely possible, and guns dont make them so. They just make them more likely.

The constitution says “shall not be infringed”, full stop. It doesn’t say anything about “bare minimums” or make exceptions for what you feel is “common sense”.

Gun control used to mean putting down your beer when you shoot but these days it means putting straps and attachments on it so you don't even have to put down your beer.

Yeah it's like a 9 round clip can still kill too many people in seconds.

Fuck the stolen seats

Was going to say that. The gun lobby has deep pockets and lots of lobbyists and lawyers. So scotus IS going to weigh in sooner, rather than later.

Edit lol being downvoted for the truth.

And they only use part of the second. They ignore half the sentence.

I own two guns and couldn't agree more. Only unhinged losers are against this.

Careful there. Things like artillery, cannons, howitzers, and even ships of war were all owned by private citizens in the 1700s.

I also have to ask if the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to any form of electronic communication, seeing as though that didn't exist in the 1700s?

Does the 1st Amendment only apply to the printing press?

Bill of Rights 1791

Puckle Gun 1718

The 20 round flintlock Chelembron 1688

Not sure the name but there was a rapid fire system that someone tired to sell to the newly formed usa gov but we didn't buy. Cause you know... We were poor.

Or just a history https://guides.loc.gov/machine-gun-its-history-development-and-use

I don’t recall electronic media being mentioned in the first amendment, no mention of Ring doorbells in the 5rd or 4th amendment, or Air Force or space force mentioned in the 3rd

They specifically used arms...instead of say muskets because theBible. Npt all seeing all knowing seers. It's a clear interpretation of having forward thinking for technology moving ahead.

You're applying the same fundamental literal interpretation stance that Christians use to persecute people based on literal interpretation of the bible.

You just need a rooftop and 100 muzzleloaders lined up... Good luck aiming at anything more than 30ft away with ball rounds, though

I love people like you. “Lets not try anything at all!” What a fucking joke.

Unfair to poor people.