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.
Pitiful and biased coverage.
Â
Want a little more truth, try:
Â
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130119/UPDATE/130119007/Gun-rally-staged-state-Capitol-draws-thousands
Â
A spirited gathering opposing gun regulations at the Capitol Mall on Saturday cheered on a dozen or so speakers during the Oregon version of the âGuns Across Americaâ rally.
Oregon State Police estimated that as many as 2,000 turned out. They came by car, truck or on foot, some with families or pets, some on motorcycles.
Â
Â
. . . .
It seems to me that on the one hand we have law abiding gun owners who voluntarily and happily comply with existing laws. On the other hand, we have a criminal and unstable element who refuse to comply with the laws in our society. Yet, we keep them on the streets, all around us. We pamper them, try to reason with them and they still try to kill us every day. Where is the will of the people to put these people away properly? Why do our elected officials insist on keeping these people in our midst? They have no right to demand that we disarm ourselves to ANY extent when they can not offer us adequate safe passage on our own streets.
Just saying...
Love the title 100's gather then the last line police estimate more then a 1000 people...NO LIBERAL KATU BIAS HERE....
Official recorded tally of attendees was 3200. It was released today.
 @Jason Schmidt No it can't be the liberal press said hundreds gathered to diminish the size of the rally...wish I could have been there!
America is finally waking up. Hope that it's not too little, too late.
Itâs time to put the final nail in this debate, and unless you have anything constructive and substantial to prove this wrong, or add to this, for your credibility, and for my sanity I ask that you try not posting against it. Here are the facts surrounding this whole debate, and surrounding everyoneâs view (including the Sheriffs) on what these proposals are, and the 2nd amendment argument made against it.
The proposals and executive actions made by our commander and chief are not in any way a violation of the 2nd amendment. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html Now he has made no Executive âOrdersâ but actions, there is a difference.
Â
Pertaining to the Weapons ban, he wants to reinstitute the same law as passed before from 1994-2004. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103D2YokF:e644150: Which even Judge Scalia, the most conservative judges to sit on the bench of the SCOTUS even said that this law was constitutional. Now in the law, it states âshall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.â Meaning that, the weapons ban will only pertain to the manufacturing and sale of any new weapons under this ban with the exception to Military and Law enforcement. So nobody will have any guns taken away, and nobody will be labeled a criminal for owning said weapons.
(Continued)Â Â Â Â
As for the 2nd Amendment itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution if you want actual text instead http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt but the SCOTUS has made rulings on the 2nd amendment a couple of times already. In D.C vs Heller http://tdistler.com/media/docs/SCOTUS_2ND_AMENDMENT_07-290.pdf Judge Scalia gave his interpretations as to the 2nd amendment as it is written, Here is the part I have been trying to get you to understand âLike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purposeâ.
Â
Â
So the claims being made that anything gun related is âgoing against our 2nd amendment rightsâ is BS and just a cover the NRA and gun manufacturers use to hide the fact that they will lose out on profits should this be passed, has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and if you are even halfway intelligent you will see through the BS cloud they are creating. To them it is about their pockets, not your constitutional rights.
Legislation...
Registration...
Confiscation...
...Subjects.
 @Kris Lovik You can't honestly believe that the other side of the gun debate is not going to go for total elimination. They will just keep chipping away at it a piece at a time all in the name of protecting the children. Yet they will continue to have soft laws on crimes involving firearms thanks to the same liberal crowd.
Â
Why not get harsh on any crime involving a firearm including stealing one and let the criminals be the ones punished not attacking rights of the law abiding in the name of protecting the children and safety for all.
Â
After all we are no longer in grade school where you threaten to punish the entire class for the actions of one. We are supposed to be adults now...
@FreedomRocks
Did you even read all the proposals? that is also in there, the gun ban was only a small part of the proposals, and none of them go against the constitution, I have already proven this, and I might add that before this the only laws passes or proposed by Obama when it came to guns was he passed the law in his first year of office to allow people to carry guns in state parks. Now how is that "trying to take our guns"?
I Do believe it, and why is it that conservatives always thinks that Liberals are sooo against the constitution when half of our founding fathers where liberals. The only thing liberals differ on with conservatives about the constitution is that we understand that it is "Organic Law" meaning that it was designed to and needs to be reinterpreted for laws of the time that was Lincoln who said it. We understand just as Obama said that "when times change so must we" and it is true, conservatives don't think this, they fought against freeing slaves, against civil rights, womenâs rights. That is the very core of being a conservative.
So keep acting as if the 2nd amendment is being attacked, and I will keep on being right with the facts on my side.
Â
Â
 @Kris Lovik Okay, bookworm. You still haven't explain how you're going to go around and collect the millions of illegal weapons out there.
Â
You haven't explain how you're going to force people to relinquish high-capacity magazines, or what happens if Glock decides to stop selling to government agencies in protest, because all of a sudden you have to make a proprietary 7-round magazine quick enough to meet the demand of millions of Americans whom the government just deemed outlaws, terrorists, rednecks and wingnuts.The NRA doesn't speak for me, knucklehead, but you don't get to either.Â
 @Kris Lovik I see through your BS.
@TreeWizard LOL! how can facts be BS? it's right there, black and white! the ignorance of some people.....
@Playanekes @TreeWizard , If your read what i posted, you would find out that no weapons are being taken away from you, even if they are on the ban list, you can keep, sell and use what you already own, the proposals are only for the manufacturing and selling of new weapons listed on the ban. so before you try and put words in my mouth actualy read the view before slamming it. but nothing is being taken away from you. so the 2nd amendment right is not being harmed in any way.
 @Kris Lovik  @TreeWizard The NRA doesn't speak for my need for the 13-round magazines that the guards at banks, federal buildings, airports, and courthouses carry, and you don't speak for me either.Not interested in your opinion but if you try to support laws that will outlaw weapons that I already own (I'm licensed private armed security), I'm not only going to slap you down for it, I'm going to punish you by refusing to support your other causes until you are no longer politically viable in my country.Decide how it's going to be. Listen to Bill Clinton.You guys are single-handedly rebuilding the Tea Party.
 @Kris Lovik Facts, if you say so.
@ Dan Cassuto... Told ya' so... Great timing on the clip. ;)
I am sure that Thomas Jefferson had a crystal ball for the future...and wholeheartedly endorsed 'the right to bear arms' to mean that everybody should have automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  He and the other founding fathers probably wanted America to become a paranoid and vengeful shooting gallery.
 @deathmetalcat Back in the day of the rag-tag 1770's citizen militia, someone had to bring along the cannon.
Just saying...
 @deathmetalcat Actually they spoke about the type of weapon in common use, so in actuality we should have no more limitations than our military.That being said, If you're posing the argument that they'd not have thought of current weaponry, therefore we have no right  to possess it, then do you think they'd agree with the first amendment meaning that you can post vile comments and whatever you want on, and browse porn via the internet?So, I'm assuming that you're in favor of SOPA and PIPA restricting your internet use? If not, your satyric comment there makes you a hypocrite.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  @Paul P.  @deathmetalcat You can if you can afford it.You can have a private army if you can. I guess you've never heard of Eric Prince, huh, Smart Guy?But just to cite a few references; 1. The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The act stated:"Every citizen...[shall] provide himself with a good musket, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints...." The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard." Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..... Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine) (BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.) More on Title 10 of the U.S. Code UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 302, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ( The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or of the Naval Militia. Further; District of Columbia v. Heller (decided 6-26-2008) upholds that the second amendment to the Constitution extends beyond the Militia to the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. The Heller decision also affirmed that handguns are âarmsâ and also struck down the portion of the firearms control act of 1975 requiring any and all rifles and shotguns to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock as unconstitutional. In McDonald v. Chicago (decided 6/28/2010) the Supreme Court upheld that the second amendment of the constitution of the United States also applies to individual states, thus ensuring the right to keep and bear arms to individuals in individual states is protected by the second amendment. The militia act of 1772 confirms that the militia is made of all free male citizens ages 18-44, and the U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) extended that meaning beyond the subgroup of males to the entire populace, and asserted that the populace is required by law to possess a military style firearm, a minimum supply of ammunition, and military equipment. The Miller case (1939) affirms that the second amendment protects all firearms in common use at the time. With recent decisions in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) both decided after the expiration of the assault weapons ban of 1994 (expired in Sept of 2004) the court had upheld that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the individual, and extends beyond state statues. These historical court cases and documents confirm that regulation of any kind on law abiding citizens regarding gun control, regardless of style, or type are unconstitutional.
 @Fed up Fed  @Paul P.  @deathmetalcat I would like my own F-16 please.
 @deathmetalcat Automatic weapons ARE illegal.  Do you even know WHY we are allowed to have guns?  To protect ourselves from tyrannical government... OURS.  Sounds like a perfect use for assault weapons to me.
@Your Name Here . @deathmetalcat right because Bush was such a great leader, and did nothing viewed and Tyranical right?
 @Your Name Here .  @deathmetalcat Automatic weapons are in fact not illegal.Â
 @Playanekes  @TreeWizard  @Your Name Here .  @deathmetalcat What you don't have a spare $20,000 laying around?
Â
My dads 223 he paid $2k for 20 years ago is now worth around $15k or so. At least until they make it illegal to transfer to someone or hand down to me.
 @Playanekes  @Your Name Here .  @deathmetalcat supporter*
 @Playanekes  @Your Name Here .  @deathmetalcat I know how expensive they are. I have stated that previously. I was simply informing a fellow gun support on his mistake. mmmkay.
 @TreeWizard  @Your Name Here .  @deathmetalcat Betcha YOU can't afford to buy one.Go ahead and try. A friend of mine owns a BAR, so, you're correct. But go out and buy a G36C or an M-16. Try it.
 @deathmetalcat Not everyone has a semi-auto rifle and significantly fewer have full-autos. Having a rifle doesn't make you vengeful or paranoid. I happen to believe the Founding Fathers would accept them.
Â
Good for them! I agree that the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government just as Thomas Jefferson believed the same.
For those who say that democrats don't want to confiscate guns here is a big secret that they are trying to keep hidden.
Â
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/19/video-shows-democratic-attempt-to-hide-their-list-of-proposals-attacking-2nd-amendment-confiscation-release-of-permit-holder-names-database-of-all-guns/
Â
Notice that confiscation is number one and two.
Â
We will not allow that so please don't even try it.
"Diana Bowem stood alone, carrying a sign that said âThe NRA is out of touch with humanity.â Bowem said sheâs a gun owner, but doesn't believe assault rifles should be available for sale.
âI donât want anybody to have weapons of mass destruction,â she said. âAssault weapons are out of bounds. Theyâre just out of bounds. Why do we need weapons like that?â
 I call BS on this one. I doubt very seriously if this granola cruncher has ever even held a gun of any sort in her hands. Good try Diana, but no soup for you..
Â
 @Razor1 I don't tell soccer moms what kind of maxi pads to use, and they don't tell me what kind of rifle to carry.The AR-15 is the standard rifle of the American military. The 2nd Amendment referred to musketry, which was the standard weapon of the militaries of the day. The idea wasn't for the government to have small arms that the public couldn't have; just the opposite. So unless the US military goes back to muskets or bolt-action rifles, there will never be a reason for a civilian--especially a soccer mom who never even registered for selective service--to tell anybody else what kind of weapon is appropriate.
Iâm assuming conservatives mean that the gun control measures being proposed (for the record,I'm not on board with all of them) is invasive to the privacy of those who want to own a firearm and invasive to rights in general. Unfortunately for conservatives, theyâve slammed into a wall and itâs called hypocrisy. Because conservatives are he'll bent on redefining rape and performing invasive vaginal probes,restricting contraception,denying marriage equality to gays,attacking the right to vote.Conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian. Of course itâs of the fundamentalist variety. And like most fundamentalists, they want to impose their religion onto the entire population whether we like it or not. Part of this agenda means forcing Christianity in schools across the country. Conservatives in several states including Indiana, Florida, Tennessee and others have tried to requires prayer in school and have tried to require creationism in science class. This is all regardless of whether you are a Christian or not.To conservatives, every aspect of our private lives should be heavily regulated from who we marry to what we do in the bedroom to what medical decisions we make to what religion we practice to how we vote and who we vote for to what culture we belong to. But they think guns should be free from regulation. They think that even the more reasonable gun control measures are invasive. They are wrong and they are hypocrites.
Nice story but not exactly true although there are some social conservatives who would use the coercive power of the state to enforce their ideal morality just as there are many "progressives" that have no problem demanding the state enforce their vision. Probably not particularly credable to take the eaxmple of a couple of idiots and extend it to the entire group tends to suggest a litlte tendency towards bigotry.
1000 people attended, none arrested, no chanting, no threats to anyone, and very peaceful.
Â
If it was a union or leftist rally there would have been chanting (they love to chant), threats to anyone who doesn't agree with them, name calling, and certainly arrests and property damage.
 @RalphCramden ~  Um-hmm... some other things  "missing"... they didn't destroy the grounds, start fights with the police, block off the streets / sidewalks (preventing people from going where they needed to go), or turn the streets into rivers of raw human sewage... all in stark contrast to a certain other "protest" group, who shall remain nameless, but who we all know anyway...
I was unable to be there yesterday, but everything I heard/read about it said that it was a perfect example of the "right to protest", done the RIGHT way...
@margay1 @RalphCramden ---- like!
I heard the NRA's new slogan is going to be "The Few, The Loud"
 @correct Nope the left copyrighted that slogan 40 years ago...
 @correct Just my opinion but you really sound like a dumb ass.
 @correct "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
 @Playanekes You really do sound like a girl.
 @correctÂ
I already have what I want. A wonderful wife of close to 40 years, a nice home that is paid for and government checks coming in every month to fund my retirement.
Â
What more could anyone ask for?
 @RalphCramden And you, my friend, are the voice of people who aren't going to get what they want and are mad as hell about it. So sorry. Actually, I'm not.Â
 @correct  @PlayanekesÂ
Correct,
Â
Ah yes. The insults. I knew you were shallow and it was just a matter of time before you proved my hypothesis.
Â
 @correct I heard the Brady Campaign's new slogan is "The Fewest, The loudest, The Dumbest."
 @TreeWizard  @correct I heard that thanks to Cuomo the new official weapon of the New York State Police and the NYPD is the Louisville Slugger and the board with a nail in it.
What other rights are you willing to give up? There are plenty of vocal politicians that say they want a complete gun ban.
Funny, no one ever has an answer to my question. Come on, what rights are you willing to give up besides the 2nd Amendment? What ones?
@correct --- I'm sure our founders never saw 24/7 news cycle or the world wide web. Otherwise they might have rethought freedom of speech. Considering printing presses printed one page at a time and had very limited distribution. If you want to make more amendments contact your representatives and lobby for a change. Our found fathers had a rather crude way of dealing with people bent dealing with insulting behavior, dueling. Face to face rather than saying stuff here where there are no consequences. I'm just fine with what our Founders created, they had already seen what happens to people ruled by a tyrant. Don't Tread On Me. Now more than ever.
 @correct  @The Resistance Ah so the world revolves around you and since you don't have a need for something everyone else should not as well. I love the arrogance and then self-centered attitude should have.
Â
You are the problem with current American which has become a bunch of self-centered spoiled brats who think everyone should behave and live like them.
 @correct  @The Resistance Would your Mom do our laundry too?
 @Playanekes There's going to be a time when your needs are addressed, too. They will eventually address mental illness, so hold tight, help's on the way.
 @correct  @The ResistanceÂ
Well I am glad that I have plenty of guns for the both of us but I won't be sharing so when it all falls apart you are on your own.
Â
Liberty and freedom always go away when there is "housecleaning".
 @correct Yes, you will have given up a right; whether, you have chosen to exercise it or not.
 @The Resistance I wouldn't be giving up any rights, because I don't own or use guns and have never needed a gun. Revising a document that was written over 200 years ago, to bring it up to date and address your faction's misinterpretations of it? That's what I'd call housecleaning.
 @The Resistance That would be fine with me. I don't need guns. Maybe if you lived your life the way I do, you wouldn't need guns either.
 @correct  @The Resistance You are a complete moron who doesn't need First Amendment rights either get ICU using them daily on this website... shall we take those away from you as well.
 @correct  @The Resistance You use guns because you enjoy the freedom they bought you.
 @correct  @The Resistance You mean everything would be "Fuzzy Bunny, and rainbows" if we moved in with you and your Mom? Is there enough room in your Moms basement for all of us?
@Playanekes @correct --- nice rant, but what rights are you willing to give up? You city people isn't me. We have had a litter of kittens dumped on our road, a console tv dumped behind my fence, etc., life happens and don't go postal over a simple question, just answer it, what other rights are you willing to waffle on?
 @Playanekes  @correct  @The Resistance "and you gangraped the elderly woman who lived next to me now so badly that she almost never leaves her home anymore." That is messed up.
 @Playanekes Hey! Are you the girl who got doused in the face with pepper spray at the Occupy Portland rally? You kind of sound like her.