This is a huge victory that will save lives in Oregon by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people who will no longer be able to exploit the vast ‘Internet loophole’ to buy guns for cash in back alleys without a Brady background check. Lives will be saved as a result.
Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
May 11, 2015
Oregon Governor Signs Bill to Expand Background Checks
[I know this is a lie. You know this is a lie. The CDC knows this is a lie. And Dan Gross knows this is a lie.
How do I know that Gross knows this is a lie? Look at the careful wording of their media release:
The Brady Campaign recently released a report highlighting the success of the Brady Law, while making the case for why Oregon needs to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales. The report shows that Brady background checks work, and that expanding them in Oregon will save lives. In 2013, Brady background checks blocked 2,215 prohibited sales in Oregon; an average of six every day.
Here they measure success by the number of sales blocked. Not the number of lives saved. If they blocked all sales they would claim an even greater success.
They go on to say:
States with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by guns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides, according to a recent report by Everytown for Gun Safety.
Here they measure success by reduction in the number of people murdered or committed suicide with guns. They don’t tell you if the total number of people murdered or committed suicide went down or perhaps went up. They don’t want to talk about violent crime rates. They only to talk about “gun deaths”.
There is a reason for that. They know that gun control does not save lives. They have a cultural of lies and deception. And whatever their motivation is for advocating gun control they are willing to lie to advance their agenda.—Joe]
I have to wonder about the numbers they’re throwing out, too. What are they basing those on, and what are their sources?
I suspect the answers are (a) imagination, (b) thin air.
Once in a while this sort of people use real numbers distorted and taken out of context, but often they simply make stuff up and expect us not to catch them at it.
And: fewer than *what*? The phrase “fewer than” is a comparative but they don’t state to what they are comparing.
What they’re saying is entirely beside the point. They’ll say whatever they believe will play in the minds of fools and lovers of lies at the moment, and it changes with the winds of culture and the news of the day. It doesn’t MATTER, you see, so long as it plays for the day, so long as enough people, or the right people, fall for it just long enough to get the next infringement through. Then it’s on to the next. Rinse, reevaluate, repeat.
The motivation of course, ultimately, is to fight and win a war against the American principles of liberty. Though at times we may make for convenient scapegoats, they’re not fighting us; they’re fighting the principles. That most people actively engaged in this war for the Dark Side actually fall for the shifting lies themselves is also rather beside the point. You won’t talk them out of it unless you can get them separated from their distractions and focused like a laser beam on the principles.
If anyone knows how to do that effectively, they’ll be the best asset this country ever had, because most of us, most of the time, like bulls in the arena, are busy chasing the various and ever-changing distractions.
Thus it is that (and I repeat); “We struggle not with flesh and blood, but with Principalities…”
It does matter because most people don’t care much about principles. And if they do they probably don’t share the same principles as you and I do. What most people do care about is honesty. If someone is lying to them then they are much less likely to trust them and what they advocate for. This is probably the weakest point of the anti-gun movement. They have to lie to further their goals. Expose their lies and in most cases they cannot advance their goals. When they can’t advance their goals we can focus on attacking the existing restrictions created by their years of malicious deception. And every objection they make we can point out, “They lied last time and you cannot trust them.” It makes every advance on our part easier.
On the other hand if you say they are anti-liberty while they are saying, “We are saving the children!” then most people will side with “saving the children” and we lose.
We have to play the game on the arena presented. We cannot force the game to be played in the arena of principles. They played the Oregon legislature game in the arena of “Save lives with background checks!”. If we don’t enter into that arena then they win the game by default. Which is essentially what happened.
“They played the Oregon legislature game in the arena of “Save lives with background checks!”.”
With all due respect, I disagree on this point. The Oregon legislature has long been in a stalemate on gun rights vs. “gun control”. There’s been a Democrat majority forever, but there’s always been two or three honest-to-God pro-gun Democrats (yes, they do exist), which made a 30-30 split in the House and/or a 20-20 split in the Senate. Neither the pro-gun nor the anti-gun side could get that one extra vote needed to pass a bill, and they knew it, so very few gun bills were introduced and even fewer made it out of committee.
That’s how it was, until the 2014 election, wherein we lost three Republicans to Democrats. The pro-gun Democrats are still there, but now there’s an anti-gun Democrat majority in both chambers.
But to get back to my disagreement with your statement, there was no “Save lives with background checks!” messaging. There was very little messaging at all; AFAIK, almost no candidate ran on – or even addressed! – the gun issue, either for or against. The issue had already been decided by the caucuses (minus the rare hold-outs on the Dem side) and among the individual members. All that was needed was a slight shift in power to get a bill passed.
Didn’t these people make speeches telling everyone how this was going to be good thing? Or are you saying they just quietly wrote it up and passed it without discussion?
This is my personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, I do keep an eye on local gun politics (living in Salem, that makes the Capitol building local).
I did not hear about any speeches from the politicians. Bloomberg/Everytown released a few television ads featuring various “everyday gun owners” and “gun violence” victims’ family members, saying it was a good bill, but the politicians themselves were pretty quiet about it. “Rammed it through” is a good description of how SB941 went down.
Given that:
1. The authors and supporters can literally be described as “the usual suspects” (they introduce identical token anti-gun bills every session); and,
2. The lead author, Floyd Prozanski, is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which the Senate President (himself unhelpful to gun owners) assigned the bill; and,
3. As the Chairman, Prozanski was able to exercise procedural rules to cease debate on and overrule all Republican amendments offered on the bill (and there were several); and,
4. Once the House got it, the House Speaker did not assign the bill to the House Judiciary Committee (where it would have faced significant opposition from pro-gun Democrats), as would have been appropriate – it went to the Rules Committee instead ….
I wholeheartedly believe there was some collusion to get it passed as quickly as possible, with as little debate or comment as they could manage. There are just too many coincidences and greased skids along the way for me to believe otherwise.
Again, just my experience, worth every penny you paid for it, but there it is. 😉