Thousands of Oregonians Show Support For Gun Rights on Capitol Steps

(SALEM, Ore.) - The Oregon State Capitol front steps were crowded for hours, filling up before “High Noon”. The massive “Guns Across America” event occurred simultaneously across the country.

Oregon winter temperatures in the low 30's did not dissuade about two thousand citizens from showing their support for the Second Amendment --and their abhorrence to President Obama's recent announcement to increase gun control regulations.

The atmosphere was energetic, and the people were bonded by their common belief that they must defend the right to own firearms.

The President's proposals include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, a mandatory background check for each gun buyer, more money for mental health, and stronger enforcement of current laws.

They believe the proposals are in direct conflict with their “God-given American Rights”. Oregon's bikers led the parade to the Capitol, and the people just kept coming.

Bikers and biker clubs have long been known for defending the US Constitution. They fly their colors proudly: the Red, White and Blue. Speakers included political pundit Lars Larson, a descendant of Wyatt Earp, and nearly a dozen others.

All were adamant about what the Second Amendment means to Americans, and the devastation that will ensue should the changes take place.

The enthusiastic crowd cheered as each of the speakers made their points, patriotic music keeping the energy high and the people warm.

Many demonstrators carried rifles, and some had holstered pistols strapped on, though none were said to have been loaded. These folks were adamantly legal.

Though there were very few anti-gun protesters on the scene, a few had the courage to stand up to the enormous crowd.

One protester said, “I have a gun, I am not against guns. I am against the lack of control that you all think is fine. I'm tired of children being murdered, aren't you?” To which she received scoffs and more than a few negative responses.

Gun-control advocates plan to hold a nationwide event on Sunday, “National Gun Prevention Sabbath”. They say 150 houses of worship will call on the faithful to advocate for an "actionable plan to prevent gun violence."

Rather ironically, there were five people injured by guns at three gun shows across the country while the rallies were underway. None were life threatening.

Bonnie King has been Publisher of Salem-News.com since August '04. She is a photographer and video producer, writer, editor and mother, which she considers her greatest position. Bonnie has served in a number of positions in the broadcast industry; TV Production Manager at KVWB (Las Vegas WB) and Producer/Director for the TV series "Hot Wheels in Las Vegas", posts as TV Promotion Director for KYMA (NBC), and KFBT (Ind.), Asst. Marketing Director (SUPERSHOPPER MAGAZINE), Director/Co-Host (Coast Entertainment Show), Radio Promotion Director (KBCH/KCRF), and Newspapers In Education/Circulation Sales Manager (STATESMAN JOURNAL NEWSPAPER).

Bonnie has a depth of understanding that reaches further than just behind the scenes, and that thoroughness is demonstrated in the perseverance to correctly present each story with the wit and wisdom necessary to compel and captivate viewers and readers alike. An lifetime activist for just causes, she continues to strive to present facts that support Truth, Justice and Peace, as we are in the world to change the world for the better. "TJP"

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Pete Yost January 23, 2013 7:30 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph, a more lasting impact of Reagan’s policy on guns was the nomination of several Supreme Court justices. Of the four justices nominated by Reagan — Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy — the latter two were still on the bench for a pair of important Supreme Court rulings on gun rights in the 2000s: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. Both sided with a narrow, 5-4 majority in striking down gun bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago while ruling that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and the states. Just the same, some of the highest gun homicide rates are in Chicago and Washington D.C., and the new laws suggested by the gun-grabbers would have no effect on these homicide rates for obvious reasons. Their desired laws will only have a negative impact on law-abiding citizens. So what is the far left's endgame? Talk to some immigrants from Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc. to get a real world insight on the type of government/political officials, and other elites (who, by the way, generally many have armed security) who desire [ultimate] firearm confiscation. Please note the "violence rate" in the UK is 5 times ours, as are the violence rates around the world are higher than ours who have gun control laws. Go to this link for a primary-sourced knowledge that dispels the myths the far left makes. It is a top notch site and the gun-grabbers realize that they lose the debate when facts are used, rather than emotionally based distractions, and that's why they avoid this site and "comprehensive" F.B.I. databases: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Anonymous January 23, 2013 2:18 pm (Pacific time)

Comparing DUI's (driving is a privilige) with a Bill of Rights Amendment is a distraction that has zero comparison relevance. The NRA is an organization that is dwarfed by the super majority of Americans, of all demographics (genders, race, political views, socio-economic levels, etc.). In the end we will see how things play out, but so far those who want tighter restrictions have failed to show how any new laws would have stopped any of these mass shootings, whereas it is shown that those areas that are not gun free zones have very little gun crime in comparison. Each time I purchase a firearm, which is frequent because I "gift" them to family members/friends I have a complete background check. In the decades that I have been providing firearms to others, well over 100 guns of different makes/styles, no one has committed a gun crime. It is the criminals and mentally unstable that cause the majority of crimes, and none of Obama's so-called Ex. commands would impact these criminals. By enforcing the laws on the books via the feds, coupled with hefty sanctions, would be the best route to take. The left always acts irrationally in dealing with problems and solutions. Raising taxes is obviously the way most on the left want to deal with revenue shortfalls, rather than the best way...cut spending. Ditto for gun crimes...prosecute, not create more feckless laws. Please note that Canada embarked on a program of registering long guns, and backed out after much expense. The same thing will happen here. So making honest hardworking law abiding citizens who own firearms as per their"right" to become outlaws if they don't register their firearms...well that will become quite a display of "coming together" to witness. The New York governor, like his father, ended his political national future prospects, when he signed a law that has made police officers felons, if they have over 7 rounds in their mags. Now the NY Governor's office say they will fix it. Kind of like voting on a bill for national healthcare and not reading it before voting on it, except for one party. Now you have both major parties involved in the firearm debate, and still no evidence that large mags are a problem. Go to a shooting contest and see how professionals use those large mags. Fear-mongering based on appearance of the AR15, or any other semi is a poor strategy...facts are known by the super majority of all Americans. Lot of lies out there coming from the gungrabbers, not from those who follow the 2nd Amendment lawfully. Maybe it's the First Amendment that needs a re-working? Of course the First would not exist if not for the Second.

Ralph E. Stone January 23, 2013 8:08 am (Pacific time)

Anonymous, you keep harping on the "right to bear arms." We have a Constitutional right to bear arms. It has been settled. What you haven't addressed is why the gun control measures are unreasonable. We don't ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn't work the first time. Well, you know what they say, "If at first you don't succeed, then try again more effectively. The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? It can't hurt. In sum, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol. And remember, Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon.

Anonymous January 22, 2013 12:44 pm (Pacific time)

At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the president counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the Indian freedom struggle. Today it is often argued that a large part of the purpose behind the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—is unjustified or irrelevant. But this argument is strikingly similar to the one advanced by the British colonialists who presented themselves as the redeemers of their colonial dominions and claimed that their rule was the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. History tells us that they were wrong. It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right of free people because despite constitutional provisions and non-violent methods of protest, it sometimes becomes necessary to resist tyranny with force. He made it a part of his program first in South Africa and later in India— both under British rule. . .He said: “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence... but non- violence is infinitely superior to violence.”

Anonymous January 21, 2013 2:37 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph what you consider to be reasonable gun laws may not mesh with others interpretation. It has been clearly shown that the so-called Assault Weapons Ban had no effect, nor did gun crime increase after it expired nearly 9 years ago. Gun crime is way down, and gun sales at frecord levels, so how does one explain that other than to see that more guns and CHL's lowers guncrime in those areas that exercise this 2nd Amendment. There is a huge pile of statistical data to prove that. What does concern me, and should also concern those who want to see more stringent gun laws is this: "[Biden says Administration Doesn't Have Time to Prosecute People Who Lie on Background Checks]: "We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws," said Baker. "If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now." http://www.nraila.org/news- issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx /Biden could just as well have said they don’t have time to prosecute all who are responsible for fraud in the government and have caused spending to go out of control.

Vic January 21, 2013 11:29 am (Pacific time)

I think this is all either a smokescreen or a diversion to occupy our simple and easily distracted minds from the real issues.Does anyone in their right mind think that disarming the American public is even possible?? Can you imagine? How many American citizens would die in gunbattles with other American citizens across the nation before it was halted? How many otherwise law abiding citizens would die with their families in bullet riddled single-wides..how many police would be killed? Perhaps they want to start a civil war...this would be the best way to do it. It is impossible and they know it. Debating this is like debating wheteher or not to shut off the sun. Dont be fooled by their tactics of division and diversion. While we are engaged in these little battles they set up for us...left vs right...gays vs straights..gun owners vs gun grabbers, the war/conguest/theft/murder for profit machine is cruising along unimpeded.

Anonymous January 21, 2013 11:26 am (Pacific time)

Bill do you think lawful gunowners (over 100 million, not counting family members) would break into your home so you would "...nail you between the eyes"...? Many of these gunowners are veterans, and many of them are combat veterans. Statistically these gunowners make the country far safer from the criminals out there who will never follow any gun laws. The AR15 is a firearm that I used to train my children, and they in turn trained their children. It is light, has no recoil, and allows for an excellent firearm platform to teach correct firearm procedures. I do not know anyone who watches the "Military Channel," so maybe you are referencing a stereotype that really is insignificant? Your .38 is an excellent weapon, but for home self-defense there are far better ones. Please note that these mass shootings have been done by people more associated with so-called gunfree zones by people who are nuts, and no existing laws or current projected laws would have stopped. Ditto for urban firearm homicides. More guns in law abiding American citizens possession means less crime, those are the facts as per the FBI, not based on emotional uninformed opinions on either side of the gun issue.

Ralph E. Stoneh January 21, 2013 8:50 am (Pacific time)

Interesting, but irrelevant discussion of the Second Amendment. the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller has laid that issue to rest when it decided that Americans have a Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." However, this does not mean that federal and state governments cannot pass and enforce gun control laws. In fact, most gun control laws have been found to be valid after the Supreme Court decision. What is at issue is whether recently proposed gun control laws meet the requirements of the Second Amendment. Clearly, they do. Will these gun control laws eliminate gun-related violence? Probably not entirely, but they will most likely help. Instead of grandstanding, gun enthusiasts should get behind these reasonable gun control laws.

Anonymous January 20, 2013 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Bill: Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791. In this Light: "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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.) What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States? First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today: "Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: "To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: "To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Bill Annett January 20, 2013 11:58 am (Pacific time)

This morning, my son Kevin produced an article on the common law right we all have, since 1215, to indict, try and prosecute child rapists, traffickers and the institutions that enable them. I bet you couldn't get five people among those thousands of staunch Oregonians to join THAT demonstration, i.e. our right to bear children. O brave new world, that hath such people in it! (Taking the Law into Our own Hands: A Fine and Necessary Tradition in the Face of Tyranny - Kevin D. Annett Salem-News.com)

Bill Annett January 20, 2013 11:50 am (Pacific time)

Talk, talk, talk. If verbiage was gunpowder, you'd all be blown to hell. I have a .38 Smith and Weston, and if any of you heroes want to come into my house I'll nail you between the eyes. But WTF has owning a musket to shoot British soldiers or squirrels got to do with producing AK-47s for nutcases who want to hunt deer (or first-graders) or practice the heroics they see on the Military Channel?

Anonymous January 20, 2013 8:14 am (Pacific time)

I was at a similar event in my state. Several reporters were there asking questions, from the print and television media. Everyone was very polite, even a couple of counter-protestors, who were ignored. Over the last several years when I have purchased firearms from dealers and gun shows I attended while in Oregon, I went through the federal background check. I fully agree with this process. When I sell a firearm privately, or give one to my children or grandchildren, or someone not a relative, then that is private. You must understand that to have a government check in this type of transaction can only be done if there is a comprehensive registration process. This will not be acceptable, and we sure know criminals will not register, nor the huge and growing criminal gangs, foreign and domestic. If another firearm is never manufactured, or no more ammo is produced commercially, it will not change anything. What is needed is enforcement of all laws on the books now. As per the FBI more people are killed by hands and feet that all rifles (link on request), regardless of their configuration, for example the AR15. Those states that have CHL's have lower crime, but still you have those who say the opposite, but provide no "primary-sourced" evidence. It does not exist.

Bill Annett January 20, 2013 7:41 am (Pacific time)

You guys are out of your minds. Period. Full stop.

[Return to Top]