I’m a progressive liberal, former lifetime member of the NRA. I have had a large gun collection and can put three rounds in the 10 ring of a B27 target at 25 yards with a Colt Government. I’ve assisted in teaching women’s self-defense courses and I have a lifelong love affair with firearms.
#That said, I have been disenfranchised by the gun lobby because of its representations of falsehoods as facts and introduction of ridiculous arguments into the public discussion about gun ownership in America. A major concern by gun-control forces is the availability of any firearm to anyone who might use a gun irresponsibly, people including minors, criminals, mental patients, even foreigners.
#A major contributing factor to irresponsible gun ownership is the gun show loophole, which allows anyone to come in off the street and purchase any weapon and amount of ammunition from a private seller’s table at a gun show without proof of identification, proof of American citizenship, or a background check of possible criminal convictions.
#Make no mistake, I believe in free enterprise, but when free enterprise provides a means of harming law-abiding citizens through misuse or criminal use of a firearm it is no longer a question of free enterprise, it is a question of personal and civic responsibility.
#Initiative 594 addresses this loophole by requiring that the sales of all firearms in the state of Washington receive the requisite background check to make it harder for criminals and their ilk to obtain firearms by adding a minor inconvenience to responsible gun ownership. After a lot of soul searching on my part, I find that Initiative 594 does not infringe on the Second Amendment and I support its passage in November.
#As an aside, regarding the recent letters to the editor calling President Obama “our gun-ban president,” I am proud the Obama administration has enhanced and protected the rights of gun owners by signing the law overturning the ban on loaded firearms possession in national parks in 2010.
#Enough of the mudslinging, name calling and pseudo facts.
#Gary D’Agostino
Walla Walla
Fortunately, in the State of Washington, there is a competing initiative, which is Initiative 591. Which reads as follows,
ReplyDelete"This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] "
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Gun_Rights_Measure,_Initiative_591_(2014)
So both sides of the issue can vote twice on the same debate, in favor of one, and against the other. And while still early in the game, as in the Colorado recall elections, the side favoring stricter gun laws are outspending gun rights advocates by about two to one.
"So far, according to the Seattle Times, 594 has brought in $1.56 million in donations, “including $315,000 from venture capitalist Nick Hanauer,” while Initiative 591 has raked in $722,000. "
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/thedailyweekly/951809-129/washington-gun-battle-heats-up-silk
It sounds like a true opportunity for the citizenry to make known their wishes.
So now you judge that the most money reflects the majority?
DeleteActually Anon, it's the opposite. In the Colorado recall elections, the incumbents outspent those attempting to remove them by a wide margin, including some hefty contribution from now former Mayor Bloomberg. Yet, they were still removed, showing that while incumbency is quite an advantage, you aren't invulnerable.
DeleteI think the initiatives on the upcoming ballot are a wonderful thing since it removes any other factors that could effect the way someone votes. It's a straight up one issue vote. Whichever way it goes, no one can credibly make the argument that there was some other issue forcing someone to compromise on their final decision.
So you don't think politicians compromise at all in the face of huge donations knowing the candidate with the most money wins over 85% of the time, no matter what their politics?
DeleteThis avoids that factor completely. Each individual votes on one issue. No future elections to muddy the waters. A very clear and simple vote.
DeleteAll that shows is the advocacy of one group, and that does not reflect majority opinion throughout the country. I'm well aware that's how it works. I reject the idea repeated here quite often, that just because there is a political win, that means the majority agree. That's why we have public opinion polls that don't match the vote.
DeleteOr perhaps those opinion polls aren't as good a measure as you'd like to believe.
Delete"All that shows is the advocacy of one group, and that does not reflect majority opinion throughout the country."
DeleteCome on Anon, I'm willing to champion both of these initiatives on the grounds its a straight up vote by the citizens with no worries of back room political deals tendered by either side. And I'm willing to do this after knowing that gun control advocates are outspending the other side by two to one so far, and you seem to be more interested in hedging your bets to minimize the damage if the initiative fails.
You can bet that if the initiative in favor of gun restrictions passes, the victory will be heralded by Mike, and I'm sure baldr considering his recent comments in regards to his perception of how lax Washington's gun laws are. And many will talk of that moment as a turning point for "common sense" gun laws. And I'll have to admit they won fair and square. Maybe I'll even have to be like the Fonz,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk
So he has made many good decisions. How nice. But that doesn't excuse his support for something that will do no good. Oh well, everyone has a blind spot somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your blind spot professor?
DeleteOf course it would do good, Greg. Your saying it won't is infantile. All gun control people and most gun owners agree.
DeleteOf course it would do good, Greg.
DeleteSure--to someone who thinks adding even more obstacles to the already inexcusably, unforgivably over-regulated process of buying guns in this country is "good."
Begging the question and a bandwagon appeal again, Mikeb. You claim a lot, but you prove nothing.
Delete"Sure--to someone who thinks adding even more obstacles to the already inexcusably, unforgivably over-regulated process of buying guns in this country is "good.""
DeleteYour statement is hogwash. It's Sunday. I can go to a local gun show and buy a gun without any background check, or any other inconvenience and walk out with that gun in minutes. There are 7 different gun shows advertised today.
It's Sunday.
DeleteNot sure what the day of the week has to do with anything, Bravely Anonymous--should buying guns be more difficult today than it was yesterday or the day before?
I can go to a local gun show and buy a gun without any background check, or any other inconvenience and walk out with that gun in minutes.
Can that gun be fully automatic, or suppressed, or a rifle with a barrel less than 16" long, or a shotgun with a barrel under 18"? Can it be 20mm? If it's a handgun, can you legally load it with tungsten-core armor-piercing ammo?
Can you legally carry it from coast to coast without first seeking permission from any government, whether local, state, or federal?
If the answer to any one of those questions is "No" (and that's the correct answer for all of them), then gun rights are inexcusably, unforgivably suppressed in this country.
Kurt, that's your biggest untruth. As Anonymous explained, the obstacles are closer to non-existent than the ridiculous description you gave.
DeleteThe "good" is measured in crime rate or murder rate or something concrete like that, not in some vague bullshit that you call an "over-regulated process." Private sales requiring background checks would improve things, no question.
No untruth from me, Mikeb. That's your side's territory.
DeleteAnd "no question"? I sure as hell question it.
The fact that most states allow you to go into a gun show and buy from a private seller without getting permission first demonstrates that those states are well run.
DeleteBut here Mikeb reminds us that he accepts things without question all too often.
GC,
DeleteIt proves what Kurt said and what you believe is a lie. It's easy to get a gun anytime. Now on with your lies.
Greg, you call it "well run" when a state allows a violent ex-felon or a brutal wife-beater to walk into a gun show and buy a gun "without permission?"
DeleteIt proves what Kurt said and what you believe is a lie.
DeleteUm, Bravely Anonymous? Where is this "lie" of mine? I didn't say buying a gun is not easy. I say it's not easy enough, especially for those of us who believe in the fundamental human right of the people to keep and bear "every terrible implement of the soldier," such as fully-automatic, short-barreled, suppressed 20mm cannons.
Disagree with my opinion if you wish, but that doesn't make it a lie.
Yeah, Kurt, you said this too: "the already inexcusably, unforgivably over-regulated process of buying guns in this country"
DeleteI'd give this round to Anonymous. You're a liar of the exaggerating, twisting, manipulating kind and then you double down on your lying bullshit and downplay what you said with nonsense like "I say it's not easy enough," You're bogus, man.
I'd give this round to Anonymous
DeleteYou can give him "this round," and a big, wet, sloppy kiss, for all I care. The fact remains that I have been exactly 100% truthful, and it's exactly 100% truthful, only because "101% truthful" is mathematically impossible.
You don't have to like the fact that my opinion is that firearm sales must be utterly unregulated, but that does nothing to make my expression of that opinion a "lie."
Dictionaries, Mikeb. There's a reason for them.
It's Sunday, is a long tradition that gun shows are held mostly on weekends. Wow, what a gotcha point! To bad you have no clue.
DeleteAs for your other points, it only shows (as you described yourself) you are not a law abiding citizen and think any regulation is evil and unconstitutional. Laughable.
Actually, if you want to get rid of the annoying regulations that differ from State to State, then you should support federal gun laws that are the same from State to State. After all it's a federal right anyways. It shouldn't matter which State you live in, your right to buy a gun should be the same no matter where you live.
I'm sure Kurt in your own mind you think you are correct, but the facts and statistics prove you wrong. It's not a matter that we will agree to disagree, it's a fact that you are wrong.
DeleteKurt, of course an opinion cannot be a lie. But what you do is extremely deceitful. First saying "the already inexcusably, unforgivably over-regulated process of buying guns in this country" and then describing your position as "I say it's not easy enough," is lying. It's not your opinion that's the lie, it's the description of your position which in the same comment thread was very different.
DeleteYou know what your problem is? You're so in love with your own glib, slick wording that you get carried away with yourself and then a few comments later when it would serve your argument to have been a bit more reserved in your exuberance, you're stuck, you trap yourself..
A major concern by gun-control forces is the availability of any firearm to anyone who might use a gun irresponsibly, people including minors, criminals, mental patients, even foreigners.
ReplyDeleteLet me be certain I've got this right. This self-described "progressive liberal" is opposed to firearms for "foreigners"? In fact, given the "even foreigners," one could argue that he finds their possession of firearms more troubling than possession by minors, criminals, and mental patients.
And keep in mind that he didn't narrow his objection to foreigners here illegally, or even to non-citizen resident aliens. He seems to be lumping even foreign-born citizens into the "no guns for you" category.
Funny--I was thinking that Mikeb calls it "racist," and indicative of "xenophobia" to deny a concealed carry permit to someone based on his being an illegal alien, let alone to deny even mere possession of a gun to legal resident aliens and even foreign-born citizens.
Puzzling.
That's just more of your nit-picking bullshit with a good bit of lying exaggeration added.
DeleteI thought you didn't go in for reading other people's minds, Kurt?
The man made a good argument for universal background checks. That was the point of his letter.
You've taken to accusing people of "lying" quite a bit lately, I've noticed. What I have not noticed is one single shred of evidence of lies where you claim them.
DeleteSo tell me--what's my "lying exaggeration" here?
The racist "progressive liberal" (is that redundant?) lumps "foreigners" with minors, criminals, and mental patients, as people unfit for gun ownership, and he mentioned no distinction between "foreigners" who are here illegally and resident aliens, or even naturalized citizens.
That is fact. I stated that fact, and my opinion of his position. An opinion, in case you're unaware, cannot be a "lie."
There might be lying in this conversation, but not on my part.
Your lying exaggeration was in the ridiculous definition for "foreigners" that you assigned to the man. It's an unbelievable stretch to think he meant it to include "foreign-born citizens" and "naturalized citizens." That's your lying bullshit.
DeleteI claimed he didn't mention a distinction. That's fact. Anyone calling it a lie is a liar.
Delete"given the "even foreigners," one could argue that he finds their possession of firearms more troubling than possession by minors, criminals, and mental patients."
DeleteThat's a bit more than simply pointing out the "he didn't mention a distinction," don't you think, Kurt?
Why the "even" if he thought "foreigners" buying guns was no more remarkable than minors, criminals, and mental patients doing so? Why not simply say, "A major concern by gun-control forces is the availability of any firearm to anyone who might use a gun irresponsibly, people including minors, criminals, mental patients, and foreigners"?
DeleteThat would still lump "foreigners" in with minors, criminals, and mental patients, as is apparently important to him, but it wouldn't imply that the "foreigners" buying guns is the most troubling of the four prospects.
Besides, I said that "one could argue" that he believes that. That is most certainly not a "lie" on my part, as per your accusation. It is an indisputable fact that one could make such an argument. You might dismiss that argument (but you'll not effectively challenge it), but you cannot deny that the argument can be made.
I meant that as a rhetorical question. Lying bullshit artists like you NEVER admit anything and NEVER EVER back down.
DeleteSpecifically, what did you mean as a rhetorical question.
DeleteAre you going to point out my "lie," yet, or are you intending to advertise the fact that you cannot find an example of a lie on my part?
Oh, and that I "NEVER EVER back down"? Some would call that strong-willed and resolute. A lot of us consider those to be good qualities.
There was only one question in my previous comment. You're busted again, Kurt.
DeleteNever ever backing down, even when one is shown to be in the wrong, is quite the opposite of a good quality.