Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?

[Jd seattle]

The gun vs car analogy is a bit apples to oranges for several reasons. To be fair I don’t agree when the gun side uses the “ban cars because they cause more deaths” argument either. But for the sake of moving forward with friendly debate let’s use it.

I don’t think there are many out there that have a sheer hatred for cars like there are with guns. There are people out there in positions of power that have this hatred from police to politicians to judges. I don’t mean just because they are in favor of gun control they hate guns. I’m talking about the ones that really would rather have only the government be armed. I am not a tin foil hat kind of guy, I don’t think black helicopters are going to swarm my house and secret government agents will bust in and kill my dog. I don’t believe we will all be rounded up and put in death camps. But I do believe there is a large amount of corruption in our government from the local all the way up to federal. We have seen countless stories about all kinds of abuses of power and scandals.

I guess it comes down to I just don’t want the government that deep into my life, i don’t want to be targeted for owning guns, I don’t want to be persecuted for owning guns and I don’t want to see a passion of mine slowly be taken away. If a gun of mine was stolen, I would gladly turn the serial number over to the police to be tracked.

Having these people come after guns as hard as they do pushes us further to extreme to defend our side. Witch in turn pushes your side further to the extreme. All of the sudden you are in the position we are in today. Both sides are too afraid to give an inch because we’re afraid the other will take a mile. Right, wrong or just paranoid, that’s my take on it.

Share This

[JayDee]

@dingdong

First, there are somewhere of 900 million “guns” in the United States (all inclusive). Three for each of us here, except that individual ownership of guns is decreasing (Fewer people own guns, but those who do own guns own more.)

–

The wording of the Second Amendment is disputed, but the one ratified by Congress is:

“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.”

–

Clearly, in any version of the wording found, the right to bear arms is conditioned on a being a member of a Militia. This suggests that the Second Amendment, subject of so much ellipsis by the NRA, is only so valid as the gun owners participation in said well-regulated militia. No gun owners I know have attended militia training. So using Constitutional Rights as a basis for justifying regulation of guns is not correct.

–

There is no constitutional right to bear arms without regulation. This is not the 1770s, so clearly the original intent is unclear. Are you willing to sign up for Militia training to preserve your rights to bear arms? If not, would you be willing to accept “regulation” of your right to bear arms, and recognize one’s responsibilities of doing so without serving in a militia?

–

@All Background checks will not solve everything. But it is better than now where the gunshow/private sales loophole exists. The non-smoking legislation says you cannot smoke within 25-feet of a door, but people do so all the time. But no one smokes in an enclosed public space, and our overall health is better. Same with background checks — If it stops one “Racer Cafe” or “SPU” shooting that would be great. Think of gradual improvement, not jumping skyscrapers in a single bound. Our current system is flawed, and voting yes on I-594 makes it less flawed.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

“If it stops one “Racer Cafe” or “SPU” shooting that would be great. Think of gradual improvement, not jumping skyscrapers in a single bound. Our current system is flawed, and voting yes on I-594 makes it less flawed.”

If you outlawed everything that had the potential to kill someone, what would we have left?

Share This

[JayDee]

@JD Seattle

I do not own a gun. By choice, but if you choose to go ahead. In our polarized politics, even getting something like background checks passed will be hard, even if you don’t support it. I doubt that with 900 million guns floating around we could get anyone to sign up for a registry. But we need to do something. We worry about a public health threat like Ebola that is very unlikely to strike, yet we fail to consider people skirting background checks for gun ownership? The mind boggles–even making it harder for one would be gun owner who should not have a gun to get one (and establishing that it should be harder than ordering a double-tall latte…) is good. You don’t want mentally ill people having unfettered access to guns do you? The background check will not stop all criminals and mentally ill people from getting them, but making it harder is a good thing.

–

@ All, seriously, if our own government was gonna take our guns, would this initiative matter? Really? A good proportion of our populace thinks our government cannot pour piss out of a boot without reading instructions on the heel and at the same time hold that they are coming for the gun owning citizens with black helicopters?

–

The founding fathers were worried that England (Redcoats) et al would come calling and that the citizens would need to respond as a militia. Which was a viable concern circa 1790. I say worry about the probable and not the fanciful. I don’t want your gun, and wouldn’t the black helicopters invade somewhere where it is less likely they’d be shot at? (Canada?).

Share This

[Jd seattle]

@jayDee- Please stop taking the media’s word on how buying a gun is easier than ordering a double-tall latte. I assure you it’s not. You can not order a gun online without a background check as the I-594 crowd leads you to believe. You can’t just walk into any ol gun show and buy a gun without a background check. You addmited you don’t own any guns so how can you possibly know how easy it is to buy one.

Also you sound pretty confident in your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Please explain to me how it without a doubt states you must be a militia member to have a right to bear arms. I believe it means the existence of the militia is vital and would not be possible unless the people are able to own weapons. Being that you were expected to show up with your own weapon in those days.

Share This

[jukk0u]

There is no “loophole”. The right exists under the law.

One cannot purchase a gun (legally) over the internet from legitimate online gun dealers without transferring the purchase through licensed dealers in this state (and be run through NICS <the background check)

If someone is purchasing a gun “online” from out of state, without going through a licensed dealer, then they are already engaging in criminal activity and NO amount of new laws are going to convince them to abide by the law.

It is funny how there is serious intent to disarm the citizens of the most just, generous, and freedom loving nation in the history of man, while at the same time spending billions of our dollars in the middle east to arm the most radical bloodthirsty murderers on the planet.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I will of course be voting no on 594. I like the part of the 2nd Amendment that says . . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Unlike todays drooling over a big and intrusive Federal Government, these amendments were written with States Rights in mind (with a weaker Federal Government). If our state votes Yes, then so be it. Some numbers … 2011: 32,163 All gun deaths. 2011: 15,953 Homicides. 2011: 38,285 Suicides. 2011: 19,766 Gun Caused Suicides. 2011: 73,883 Non Fatal Gun injuries.

I am OK with banning guns from people who have mental illness, or are bi-polar, have major depression, or other bad mental health issues. Some of these horrible shootings could be avoided. Not all. But for now we don’t give drivers licenses to completely blind people. Why should we allow people with Mental issues the right to own guns? More than half the gun deaths are because of Suicide.

Here is what is on the books in our state. Wash. Rev. Code §9.41.040 http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

I would say there is room to help more people. I personally think if you do not know how to handle a gun, then you should be required to take a class to at least learn how to pick up a gun without shooting yourself or somebody else.

Lets turn this around. Would you, if you were anti-gun, want to have to register that you do not have a gun in your home, and have that released to the public. If I am a thief I would be licking my chops.

Share This

[Ellisd]

As to you slight inconvenience:

“I am Scott Brennan. I have been with your Sheriff’s Department for over 26 years. As the person who will have to enforce I-594 I have read it very carefully.

Here is what it will mean to you. If passed I-594 covers ALL gun SALES and TRANSFERS (more on this later).

This means if you want to sell your long time neighbor John that shotgun he has always admired, you, John and the shotgun have catch the ferry to the mainland and drive to a licensed gun dealer in Anacortes or Mt. Vernon.

You have to register the gun. John has to fill out background check papers. You have to pay a ‘reasonable fee’ (whatever the gun dealer wants) You then both go home and wait.

Then 10 days later, you, John and the shotgun again catch the ferry back to the mainland and go back to the dealer, where John finally pays you and you get to hand him the shotgun. That’s SALES.

Now, we get into TRANSFERS. Sooo, the deputies want to surprise a retiring officer with a gun as a gift. The gun owner, the gun and the retiring officer again have to catch the ferry and go the mainland gun dealer. We have to register the gun and the ‘surprised officer’ has to do the background check paperwork. We again pay the ‘reasonable fee’.

Then we all get to go home again and wait ten days. Then we again catch the ferry to the mainland, go back to the gun store and finally ‘surprise’ our coworker with his gift (TRANSFER).

Here is one better. I want to loan my friend Gary my break down shotgun for his motorcycle trip to Alaska. We, once again, have to go to the mainland, drive to Anacortes or Mt. Vernon, register the gun, Gary does the background check and we pay the ‘reasonable fee’.

Ten days later we’re back and I get to ‘loan’ him the gun in front of the dealer. Gary has a great trip and comes back three weeks later. After he comes back, we all have to go back to the mainland, go back to the dealer and now I have to fill out the paperwork and pay the fee to be approved to get my own gun back.

As a law enforcement officer, I know this is completely un-enforceable. Unless a cop is hiding in your living room when you make the sale, gift or loan, no one will ever know it happened and it won’t help solve the problem. Sadly, both sides have wasted multi-millions of dollars on this un-workable Initiative.

If this money had been put into mental health efforts or awareness and firearms safety training for parents and families, it might have produced the desired results. Don’t waste more funding, Vote No on I-594 and concentrate on helping people in crisis.

Sgt. Scott Brennan,

26 years in Law Enforcement”

Share This

[dobro]

“I like the part of the 2nd Amendment that says . . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This, of course, is the main problem with this issue and any other regarding Constitutional rights. If we LIKE one part, we prefer to forget about the rest of it. In this case, disregarding an entire clause which, if you understand English, clearly makes gun ownership rights subject to regulation. I have no hope this will ever change, but its kind of sad when you think about it.

Share This

[Ellisd]

in·fringe verb in-ˈfrinj

: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)

Share This

[dobro]

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.

Anybody see that part “well-regulated”?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Yup. And we have two. One – a standing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines that didn’t exist and wasn’t funded – see Shay’s Rebellion – at our founding.

And two, a standing National Guard which wasn’t created until the 1900’s, and had existed as state-regulated militias from the 1700’s until they were officially connected to the national military structure in the 1930’s.

Both quite well funded – to the tune of $800B a year to protect us from enemies both external and internal.

Share This

[Ellisd]

Back to the 2A debate huh. You really can look at that in so many ways. I understand your interpretation, but I then do not understand the term of people. In your take on this wouldn’t it be more like A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.?

Share This

[Ellisd]

Please remember that the supreme court did rule in Dist of Columbia VS Heller that your interpretation is incorrect.

Share This

[Ellisd]

oh and again in mcdonald vs Chicago

Share This

[wakeflood]

And for those that don’t think the Constitution is malleable to allow for current realities, there’s these things called Amendments.

They’re allowed for in the Constitution for a reason.

Here’s a quote from a fairly sharp guy who had something to do with our founding:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson

Share This

[wakeflood]

Heller was yet another 5-4 party line decision by a court that a plurality if not a majority of Americans think is partisan and should no longer hold the positions for life – exactly BECAUSE of decisions like Heller.

Share This

[JoB]

So.. just because i believe in responsible gun ownership..

you assume i am unfamiliar with them or that i hate guns..

give me a ….. break!

what i hate is irresponsible behavior.

if you want to own a gun.. own the liability that comes with it.. which includes being 100% responsible for making sure that gun is either in your possession or in secured storage…

and that if you “pass it along” to someone else.. you will only do so to someone who will assume the same responsibility.

now.. i would like to believe that every gun owner is a responsible person and will do that all on their own..

but all i have to do is read the nightly news to find that isn’t the case.

today’s story.. a mom in California who is being prosecuted after her son brought a gun to school.

When the police investigated.. they found several unsecured weapons in the house.

Thank god that gun was discovered before it was used on the playground. The kicker in this story is that the kid brought an extra clip to school with him.

sobering, isn’t it.

You want to be able to claim for yourself special privileges which you call rights…

and accept no responsibility for the fact that securing those rights for yourself allows irresponsible people to put others in danger?

what the … are you thinking?

man up. agree to have your firearms identified and registered.

Agree to accept full responsibility for any firearm you own.

If you sell that firearm, register the sale.

If it’s stolen, register the theft.

if you don’t and it is used in a crime, expect to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting that crime.

this isn’t your first born child we are talking about here.. or a personal appendage..

it is a firearm … a lethal weapon … a possession that can and is used to kill.

if you are going to own one it is your responsibility to be 100% responsible for that possession …

which means being 100% accountable.

Now.. you might wonder where i got all of these radical ideas..

i learned them in my first gun safety class.. at the age of 10… which i had to pass before I could participate in the yearly family deer and elk hunts… as a tracker

I took that gun safety class with the NRA

We learned responsibility before we fired a single shot…

You have to have a license to operate an automobile.. and to get that license you have to prove you understand the traffic safety laws and that you can safely and competently operate that automobile.

in the state of Washington all you need to get a concealed carry permit is the ability to pass a background check limited to criminal felony convictions and a verifiable address.

tell yourself again how much safer you are because the guy or gal who didn’t have to prove they could safely fire a gun or were competent to use one is legally carrying.

but that’s another conversation isn’t it…

this law wouldn’t require competency for firearm ownership..

it would simply require a verifiable and traceable certification of ownership for guns.

which could lead to accountability for crimes committed with firearms

which in my opinion is the real monster hiding under this bed…

the accountability that should be a no brainer for a responsible gun owner.

Share This

[wakeflood]

This country’s POTENTIAL to exist was hanging by a thread throughout our war of independence with Britain. And they STILL couldn’t get the Army funded for more than a few months at a time. The concept of a standing Army if and when they secured independence wasn’t a sure thing. The idea of keeping the capacity for defending a still weak nation from enemies fell to the citizenry as the defenders of last resort.

Once a standing Army was secured, the citizen-armies became the National Guard, which exists today.

Context means alot.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Thanks, JoB. Agree whole-heartedly.

Share This

[Ellisd]

And by thomas jeffersons quote should we not look at current evidence to base our decisions on? how about Chicago. If you look at statistical data for murder rate after gun ban it was on a steady increase after the enormous spike that was just after the law went into effect. After they legalized concealed carry the murder rate dropped to 1958 levels.

Share This

[Ellisd]

Once again I must state that UBCs are not the issue here it is the very poorly written law that is the problem. You can derail from that point as much as you want, but the fact remains that this thing is garbage. and to push it into law and say well I assume they will fix it is far from responsible in itself. If it passes and 591 doesn’t, it will be law. It will effect a large percentage of the state population, and it will do very little in solving the problem that it claims to be for. If they had accepted the offer from WAC (who puts on most of the gun shows here and does not allow non (background checked) members purchase (no loophole there) and the 2A foundation in on the drafting table, like they had offered, maybe we would have something reasonable that accomplishes what this initiative states it is for.

@job

I agree that the CCW law is crap as well. I truly believe that it should be more like Texas. class, qualify and background check. I do not want some Microsoft reject out running around with a 44mag thinking they are cool when they have no experience in shooting. But that is another subject all together.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Re: Chicago.

Data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Harold Pollack shows that this uptick, while certainly worrying, isn’t anything like a return to the historic peaks during America’s crime wave. Pollack notes that “Chicago ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in America…the idea that Chicago faces a unique or unprecedented rise in homicides is incorrect. Our problems are all too familiar and chronic throughout much of urban America.” Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half:

Chicago had an outright ban on handguns from 1982 until 2010, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. So there’s no reason to believe that strict regulations on gun ownership were responsible for a spike in gun homicides in 2012, two years after Chicago was forced to loosen its gun laws. Moreover, there’s simply no credible evidence that wider gun ownership or looser gun laws reduce crime.

Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns: it has roughly six times as many guns as New York City per capita, despite its restrictive laws. So if gang conflict escalates, and the gangs have easy access to guns, the homicide rate should rise. This explanation fits with the fact that 87 percent of Chicago homicides in 2012 were gun-related. New York, by contrast, did not experience a surge in homicides in 2012.

Full article here: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/

Share This

[Ellisd]

Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns: it has roughly six times as many guns as New York City per capita, despite its restrictive laws.

using this how would i594 help then?

Share This

[Ellisd]

and more on chicago I am not talking about 70s more in early 2000s

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/04/04/chicago-enacts-concealed-carry-murder-rate-promptly-falls-to-1958-level-n1818843

Share This

[Author]

Posts