Search Results for 'eG'

[JanS]

Let’s see….Pennsylvania…Gov. Tom Corbett (R)……enough said..:(

( http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/10/pennsylvania-governor-tom-corbett-signs-firearms-preemption-legislation-into-law.aspx )

[dobro]

The problem is not teen angst. That’s been around forever. Teens in other countries experience it,too. Here in the USA, the problem is that they have easy access to guns. The solution will be some way of controlling their access to guns and creating a path of legal liability for those that allow such access. Any ideas on how we do that?

[Raincity]

Our family is considering going down to be a 1 car family as our second car is on it’s way out. We want to try car2go or zip car now and wondered what your experiences have been? We’ve decided we just can’t afford a car and still be able to send our daughter to college some day.

Is it easy enough to find a car when you need it for car2go and is the car so tiny it’s scary to drive? For zip car it looks like there is only 4 for all of west seattle – is reserving it tough? We would likely use it for trips around west seattle when a bike won’t work or down town for a meeting to somewhere buses aren’t well connected too. Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.

[JoB]

935

“I find it highly suspect that you have seen people walking around with machine guns.”

assumptions will get you nowhere

my brother owns them

and i have cousins who own them

i sensibly refused to get into a truck with one cousin who had his loaded machine gun parked in a rack in the cab of his pickup.

i grew up in ranch country in Eastern Oregon and could shoot well by the time i was 10. i still can.

I am more than familiar with firearms.

i don’t know how many of my immediate family members own guns because i have never asked them all..

but i am guessing that in my immediate family… husband, kids, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews that the likelihood that most of them own more than one gun is pretty high…

i have seen pictures of family gatherings where the guns piled in the center .. a collection that would make a terrorist cell proud.. are surrounded by family members hoisting their beers.

admitted.. these gatherings are on rural family property.. but the pile of guns is still more than impressive in both it’s size and diversity.

and if you get into my first cousins… 52… and their offspring… the likelihood of owning multiple weapons goes through the roof… not to mention the likelihood that at least some of those weapons are military grade.. my family believes in military and civic service.

“This is the problem I have with the anti gun crowd – they really don’t know what they’re talking about.”

unless of course, they do..

[singularname]

Regarding the numerous condescending references to those “fearful” of the government, it’s not about fear but anger at rendering citizens helpless against crimes by other citizens and by those sporting their new snazzy taxpayer-funded militia knickers and tricked-out rides.

The reporting is collated at http://www.policestateusa.com/ (ultimately, Oath Keepers). If you don’t like the source, you can verify the accuracy at your favorite news outlet–I’ve found them to in fact be accurate. And right outta the gate, “Ferguson” and “SPD” are familiar to most (all?) of you. I’m just enough of a “nut” to still hold a spot of outrage about the Davidian Debacle. How many children were murdered there as a result of fed actions?

For every anecdote here about cousin/friend/nephew/et al., as well as the “86 school shootings since Sandy Hook” stat, I’ve got a separate anecdote for each one. Katrina. No fewer than 18 firearms illegally confiscated from my family alone by NOPD or National Guard at locations in their houses, on their property, or within their block; three returned last I heard. Two forced evictions at gunpoint 3 days after storm; 14 forced evictions as late as 2 months after storm (all but 2 the homeowner). Three family members among hundreds (number undetermined) restricted from entering Gretna at gunpoint. Three family deaths in or during the immediate aftermath of the storm, one from a good ol’-fashioned fist beating. Uncle on roof for 8 days, until the Canadians rescued him. Best we can figure, he had a shotgun laying on his roof next to him when the U.S. acknowledged him and rocked on by–died the following June of pneumonia, still “refugeeing” in Lafayette (the 1,900 number doesn’t come close). Four jailed for “seeming” suspicious–yes, it is suspicious to be wading waist-deep in oily water while hurdling powerlines. Want more? Cuz I got more. I find all of this to be equally insane to school shootings, the former being intentionally unplanned and systematically disorganized terror against citizens by elected servants in a natural disaster crisis, the latter resulting from deranged individuals and grossly irresponsible gunowners. (Which has me recalling: I admonished a gunowner on here a month or so ago because his/her laying-about weapon was stolen by transient movers he/she hired, and I was in turn soundly admonished by some of the same folks here who believe tighter controls are the answer in this mess. Can’t wrap my mind around that one.)

As to the original Q, seriously yeah. Arrest the parent now on a manslaughter charge just as cop Carile was. And why was that cop let off anyway? My recall is that the jury felt he’d already suffered enough. Boo-frickin’-hoo. The jury (was it a jury trial?) could have EASILY found him guilty–especially given the majority could be presumed to be some version of “anti-gun.” They could give this another go-round, especially since this father isn’t a cop.

[HMC Rich]

I think we are off topic just a bit. A gun is one of the most effective tools to kill. That is what it is made for.

Could this tragedy have been prevented. Maybe.

Would you be yelling for the father and mothers head if the young man had decided to steal the family car and run over his friends and relatives?

The kid snapped. It is tragic. Would it not be better to attack this problem in a variety of ways? I am certain there are a variety of solutions that a majority can agree on.

There are laws on the books that prohibit certain types of arsenals to be used. There needs to be more laws regarding Mental Health. How about putting Officers there with metal detectors or even keypad entry systems in the schools? This should be paid for by the cities and not come out of education budgets

[dobro]

But back to the rational discussion…are there any gun enthusiasts here that can offer solutions that would actually accomplish the goals of legally enforceable ownership/liability laws for guns? This is where the responsible gun owners (the large majority they would have us believe)need to step up. Anybody?

[JTB]

935. I suppose the posture you’ve taken from the beginning in this thread evokes my stereotypical notion of an uniformed, provocative guy. If that’s not the case, you may replace “guy” with “woman.” Otherwise, thank you for clarifying your intention.

[JTB]

935, that’s one of the most famous misquotes attributed to Washington. Strange you’d still be using it since it’s been debunked so thoroughly. Check out the Mt. Vernon library for confirmation. What he said was,

“BE PREPARED FOR WAR TO PRESERVE PEACE

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

ARMED, DISCIPLINED, INDEPENDENTLY SUPPLIED

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. . . .”

In the same speech he said,

“TEACH THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES TO KNOW AND TO VALUE THEIR OWN RIGHTS

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways – by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness – cherishing the first, avoiding the last – and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.”

You will note he refers to being able to exercise your discriminative faculty, something I questioned about your original post and for which you have further demonstrated a deficiency. For god’s sake man, if you’re going to put something forward, at least take the time to determine if it’s accurate. That’s assuming you wish to be taken seriously.

[935]

Yes,I know the full text of the 2nd says: “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”…

Would you like to rehash the placement of the comma? The capitalization of the word “Miltia”? The word “regulated”?

Which tired old Anti argument would you like to use?

All of the above a settled law. Most recently with the Heller decision of the Supreme Court:”… that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…”

As far as the discipline comment, you are absolutely correct to question that one:-) in the days of Washington, I think discipline meant something different than it does today. Whatever that is,I’ll leave to the philosophers.

[dobro]

“We’ll forgive me for trying to discuss it rationally.”

“Until we have a government that so many don’t distrust (if that’s even possible), I don’t have an answer that will satisfy you.”

Where in the “rationally” part are any solutions offered that could actually accomplish the goals of legally enforceable ownership/liability laws for guns?

[935]

I find it highly suspect that you have seen people walking around with machine guns. Have you been in war zones? The middle east? Military bases? Israel? You may have seen “scary looking guns” but I assure you, unless you are in the above locales, the likelihood that what you are seeing are fully automatic machines of war is virtually nil.

This is the problem I have with the anti gun crowd – they really don’t know what they’re talking about. ‘I don’t mind taking away your rights,just don’t touch mine’. ‘That gun is scary, we should ban it’. ‘If we pass gun control measures It Will Stop School Shootings’.

The simple fact of the matter is that guns are legal. They will continue to be legal. Bad people will do bad things. Bad people will get guns to do bad things. Instead of demonizing a piece (or several pieces of) steel – if you are interested in stopping school shootings – why not spend your energies working with disaffected youth. If you would like to stop random acts of violence, work with your legislators to create a mental health safety net. If you would like to stop domestic abusers from killing the object of their obsession, again, work with your legislators for sentencing revisions. All of the above by the way are forbidden to have guns.

As far as the “right” you say doesn’t exist in the second – it clearly states “the RIGHT to keep and a bear arms shall not be infringed”

As far as the document that created the distrust we have in this government, yes. Absolutely. Our Forefathers WANTED us to be wary of the government.

“An armed man is a citizen,an unarmed man is a subject. A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government” – George Washington

I guess words like these are only spoken in tyrannical times.

[kurly212]

What a timely question! May I offer an alternative? I just purchased a pair of leather riding boots that were perfect except that getting them zipped up over leggings was a workout – I literally was sweating! And once I did get them zipped, I felt like my circulation was being cut off. So, I did a Google search on boot shaft stretching and found a lot of talk about how the spray used by professionals is mostly alcohol and a lot of women are doing it themselves at home. This past weekend, I decided to take the chance.

I put 70% isopropyl alcohol in a spray bottle, slipped on some “house” leggings just in case there was any dye transfer and put on the boots, zipping them up to the point just before I’d start to struggle. Then I sprayed the boots inside and out, only at the parts where they were too tight. In this case, it was the inner part of the calf from the middle of the shaft to the top, right around the zipper. Then I gently stretched them as I zipped them all the way up. It was amazing how much easier it was to zip them up right away! Then I walked around and did some deep knee bends to stretch them out further. When the alcohol was dry, I removed the boots. I’d say they stretched between 1/2 to 1 inch. If they’re too tight when I try them with skinny jeans, I’ll do another application.

I know it sounds a little scary to spray something as drying as rubbing alcohol on leather, but only a little bit of dye rubbed off on my fingers (easily washed off with soap), and there are no signs of damage to the boots. I can’t say I would risk this with super expensive designer boots (mine were about $200), suede, or vintage or otherwise fragile leather. Also, I used the alcohol full-strength, but if you do a search you’ll see others who used a 50/50 alcohol/water mix. Something to consider if you’re scared to go full alcohol. And you could do a patch test on a less visible area to test how it affects the leather.

[Jd seattle]

Dobro – “So here’s my question…how do we establish ownership and responsibility/liability for individual guns without registration? Any ideas?”

Until we have a government that so many don’t distrust (if that’s even possible), I don’t have an answer that will satisfy you.

[935]

Wake, Thank you for proving my point. Speech is regulated, as are firearms. See anyone walking around with a machine gun? Hand grenade?

My point is that if 594 is passes,it would be akin to infringing further on the freedom of speech. What if the gov’t censored what YOU wanted to say or WHEN you wanted to say it. Reasonable people can decide on reasonable things.

It seems though that the (ad hominem here) anti-gunners are not reasonable.

Register/confiscate/outright ban. If you say that is not the endgame,it is a lie, and a disservice to your (not as in “you”, the universal) cause.

As far as to the surety that 594 will pass, that shows Seattle liberal arrogance is in full effect. Seattle is full of reasonable people that realize this is a an assault on the 2nd Ammendment of the US Constitution. Eastern Washington is planning on turning out in droves to vote this down.

Our Forefathers made Speech #1, and backed up that right with #2.

“I do not like what you have to say, But I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”-Voltaire

Sometimes I wish the shoe was on the other foot.

[Jd seattle]

Dobro – I was illuding to registration and insurance as discussed in the other thread. How would we deter people from breaking the law and not registering? Penalties right?

[dobro]

“I’m just trying to find common ground.”

So here’s my question…how do we establish ownership and responsibility/liability for individual guns without registration? Any ideas?

[dobro]

“I know it would be difficult to enforce this for compliance, but deterence can be an effective tool.”

Not just difficult…unenforceable. Unenforceable laws do not create any deterrent effect.

“If one chooses not to follow them what makes you think they would follow the other ones you are proposing?”

Probably because these other laws we’re talking about involves sales and transfer of guns through businesses. There’s a lot of incentive to keep your business legal and much opportunity for consequences if you don’t. Unlike the situation with unenforceable “safe storage” laws.

[Jd seattle]

Wakeflood- I’m just trying to find common ground. You think I’m as crazy for not wanting registration as I think you are for wanting it. Fine. Let’s accept people have the free will to form their decisions and find something we can agree on. I will admit I got “sucked in” on the other thread but I am getting tired of the same old debates on how much can we divide and alienate each other . That’s why I’m still here.

[wakeflood]

I wasn’t denouncing any other law, myself. I was merely indicating that much money and effort is dedicated to ensuring that registration is perceived as a non-starter, so just move along.

I’m obviously open to incremental steps toward it as I can’t see any way that registration ISN’T part of the answer.

[Jd seattle]

dobro – when i594 passes possession will imply ownership when we are talking about guns in a home. There is no exemption that would cover having someone else’s gun in your house short of them being there with it.

I understand you guys want full registration. But it’s not realistically happening anytime soon so why denounce any other law simply because you can’t get the full package. I know it would be difficult to enforce this for compliance, but deterence can be an effective tool. That’s what the majority of our laws are. If one chooses not to follow them what makes you think they would follow the other ones you are proposing?

[JTB]

Oh my, I admit I find it hard to resist an opportunity to respond to a cynical pose with a bit of snark. So here I go again. Hey, 935—your assertion only holds true assuming a large number of listeners with a diminished discriminative faculty— can’t distinguish between the sensible and non-sensible. Oh, no; Have I done myself in? It appears that indeed there are vast numbers of people who have lost the ability to discriminate between substance and hype. However, upon consideration, it seems obvious that is the result of vast resources being committed to achieving that end, not simply a matter of speech versus bullets. Speaking of which our current societal predicament regarding firearms and public safety is the result of significant financial resources committed to accomplishing that end, courtesy of firearms manufactures. So perhaps you might reconsider your post to reflect that money is more powerful than either speech or arms. Then we might have a worthwhile discussion about Citizens United and related issues.

[dobro]

“JoB – ownership in these terms doesn’t matter. If the gun is in your home you are responsible for it.”

Now I am not a lawyer, but I feel pretty confidant in saying that no court of law is going to accept that line of reasoning. If there are going to be legal consequences to gun owners then there must be a legal way of determining ownership.

Pretending that there can be sensible and enforceable laws about gun storage without a legal method of establishing ownership leads to one of those distracting “discussions” that gun enthusiasts love to use to misdirect and diffuse energy that might lead to some kind of registration.

[sn6uV]

Our experience over the last 7 years of childcare with West Seattle nannies is that you have to plan for at least $15 per hour for 1 kid and probably $16 or $17 for two kids. The $15 per hour price point doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have a car, which can be okay, but can also be a pain for sports, activities, and if you need to meet kids after work, etc. I think you get a nanny with a reliable car at about $17. At the $20 per hour price point, you start getting really good people who can handle everything, help clean up the house, have great relationships with the kids, prepare healthy snacks etc, and at $22 you start getting people with masters degrees in music or child development i.e. super nannies :-)

***

The other significant issue you might encounter is sick nannies, i.e. you have to decide how sick they can be and still watch your kids and whether they will watch sick kids and if their definition of sick is the same as your ‘professional salaried employee’ definition of sick. You’ll have to plan to take some sick days even if you’ve never taken any before and it could be a lot more that you may be hoping for since nannies are often exposed to a lot of sick kids.

***

5:30 AM is a pretty rough start time, so that might also present some challenges.

[wakeflood]

Unfortunately, some of the nuts with legal arsenals are the ones that go off. Deterrence for them is simply a non-factor if not an added impetus on top of whatever tinfoil hat issues they already have.