Why so much hate on helpful laws?

[thebootypir8]

Dear Northwest Firearms Friends,

I am from Illinois (not Chicago) where I am currently finishing my aircraft mechanic course and certification, which will be complete in two weeks. I have also been working on my residency in WA while in IL and will be in the Seattle area with my family to begin my job search upon completion of my training. I am so happy to be moving back to such a glorious state as Washington. I am a moderate, more left leaning gun owner and always will be one, and I do not understand the hostility when it comes to legal changes to laws regarding firearms to any extent.

For instance, consider Obama's legislation. He is using executive powers to push through laws that make background checks required for sellers (gun shows, etc), as well as modifying who qualifies as a "seller" so that people cannot get away with avoiding background checks without making legal repercussions much worse. He also is targeting the severe lack of funding that our Mental health system gets by providing much more cash flow going into vamping up that area of medicine and clinical treatment. Neither of those are hurting the right or ease of buying guns and owning guns, just adding a fast background check to the super minority of gun sales without checks and improving a mental health system that will aid in reducing our suicide rates (by targeting the stigma of "weakness" for getting help) and mental problems with citizens and military alike. Yet, there is a massive amount of resistance from the right side of the political spectrum for these measures currently.

I saw this news on Gov. Inslee acting on executive orders of his own to improve mental health and data sharing between local LE services and Federal LE branches, and noticed how much flak this move has been getting as well. The data sharing wouldn't hurt us in any way (the NSA already could spy on anyone of use just because), and the mental health system attention is tremendously helpful and something both the left and right agree on improving to combat the rates of people dying or hurt by firearms.

My point is that none of these laws, which the majority of people approve of (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html), would limit the ability of a responsible and legal person to get a firearm or add a huge burden to the process, but will almost certainly help with Mental health, and probably with the number of gun fatalities each year. It will, matter of fact, now make gun shows and owners look better, since the "loophole" has been eliminated, and will allow the expulsion, by legal process and the removal of credentials (FFL, etc.), of irresponsible dealers that do not perform background checks on every purchase, which make guns look bad. Background checks are pretty fast, and as a man who owns his own firearms and has gone through the process, I was shocked by how smooth the process was. A background check doesn't add any stress to the process at all, but only adds a layer of security and common sense to the equation. These laws are not anti-gun in any way, they don't say you can't own firearms, limit the numbers, or burden people with insane levels of hassle to get a firearm. These laws are not aiding in anyone's "coming for your guns" tactic either, as that logic was just created by manufacturers and lobbyists to get funding and inspire fear (with adds even more money) while benefitting the company and securing their future.

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help, don't play in to any fear mongering tactics, and will create a future that firearms are looked upon in a more positive light than what people see from the NRA now (such as this

) and other groups that are so against any change or progress to the point of dogmatism and fear mongering. Why can we not represent ourselves like the gun owners we actually are, kind, responsible, law abiding and non aggressive individuals who can approach an issue with confidence and poise.

Now, I did not mean to offend anyone by this post, but I just wanted to shed light on this issue because of how it seems there are groups that do not represent what most gun owners believe, but just the extreme points and fear creating tactics. I have not been overly aggressive, insulting or vulgar towards anyone, and I will ask that if anyone responds to my question and discussion, please treat me with the same professionalism and kindness that I have tried approach everyone here with. Thanks for your time and I hope you guys have a fantastic 2016.

Read More

 

[41Slinger]

Let me say this about that ^^^^^^^.
My advise to you would be to not say anymore, just spend some time reading and studying and learning, because other wise with the view point that you are bringing in here especially in this time period it's probably not gonna go well for ya. Not meant to be hateful, JMHO.

PS I'm sure you will get debate as it's a very debatable subject.

 

[Rturo]

I understand and can agree with some of your sentiment. I also happen to lean left, unless it concerns immigration or taxes - then I'm pretty far right and thus never vote for Democrats.

I think its a fair question your posing too, why all the resistance with what amounts to rather benign yet also common sense changes to existing firearms law. The mental health system funding is just icing on the cake. I have zero issues with what's being proposed here either.

The problem lies in Obama and his Democratic allies. No one trusts them on this issue. In the wake of Newton there was this frenzied narrative about 'weapons of war' and draft legislation that actually banned certain firearms. People instantly thought the 'assault weapons ban' or something similar (or worse) was right around the corner.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

As frustrating and infuriating as this topic is for most members here... I'll take it easy on you as im a pretty laid back dude. Long story short: While i cannot speak for anyone here, im sure most would agree that the government is already regulating our lives TOO much.Their agenda is to chip away at our gun rights little by little so that when we are completely disarmed then we have no means to defend ourselves and will be completely at the mercy of the government. Without our 2nd ammendment rights we as americans will have no more rights.

why should we be TOLD how to sell our personal property? WHY should we be FORCED to let the government know everytime we do something such as sell a gun?? Wouldn't you be upset if for every time you sold something you HAD to pay the goverment for approval? I personally have never sold a gun BUT because of SB941 for example,i cannot sell a gun to my father in law without a BGC. However, i could give the gun to my wife and she could sell it to her dad and gift me some cash. BS if you ask me.

I honestly believe the government has WAY more important issues to address at this time. example: There are 1000s of refugees AKA potential jihadists flooding into this country from syria and we are welcoming them with open arms.

its a sore subject on a never ending battle. Good luck finding the answers youre looking for!

 

[thebootypir8]

I understand and can agree with some of your sentiment. I also happen to lean left, unless it concerns immigration or taxes - then I'm pretty far right and thus never vote for Democrats.

I think its a fair question your posing too, why all the resistance with what amounts to rather benign yet also common sense changes to existing firearms law. The mental health system funding is just icing on the cake. I have zero issues with what's being proposed here either.

The problem lies in Obama and his Democratic allies. No one trusts them on this issue. In the wake of Newton there was this frenzied narrative about 'weapons of war' and draft legislation that actually banned certain firearms. People instantly thought the 'assault weapons ban' or something similar (or worse) was right around the corner.

I can definitely see where you are coming from as well, I didn't like the "assault weapons" and other ban ideas some way left individuals had. It seems like there is very much a lack of civilized debate on this subject, so thanks for your reply, it is nice to have some common ground on topics like this.

 

[41Slinger]

Do some research into the history of gun control, read a few books about it, might surprise you what you'll learn about how, why and who and why there is no trust.

You can't negotiate with a liar. Can't do it.

 

[x2ndxall]

Too many people in this world listen to the Cake-Eaters and take their word for gospel.
The facts, if that's what you want, are that: *Guns are not the problem. People who don't follow laws are the problem.
*There have been plenty of gun laws in place for some time. The laws have not been enforced. Punish those who commit crimes. Being soft on crime is a problem.
*Tougher gun laws only hurt the law-abiding. Obviously.

......I don't know why I started. I'm tired and 0500 is coming up quick. So, I've got more but that'll have to wait.
You owe it to yourself to give it some honest thought.
Goodnight.

 

[x2ndxall]

As frustrating and infuriating as this topic is for most members here... I'll take it easy on you as im a pretty laid back dude. Long story short: While i cannot speak for anyone here, im sure most would agree that the government is already regulating our lives TOO much.Their agenda is to chip away at our gun rights little by little so that when we are completely disarmed then we have no means to defend ourselves and will be completely at the mercy of the government. Without our 2nd ammendment rights we as americans will have no more rights.

why should we be TOLD how to sell our personal property? WHY should we be FORCED to let the government know everytime we do something such as sell a gun?? Wouldn't you be upset if for every time you sold something you HAD to pay the goverment for approval? I personally have never sold a gun BUT because of SB941 for example,i cannot sell a gun to my father in law without a BGC. However, i could give the gun to my wife and she could sell it to her dad and gift me some cash. BS if you ask me.

I honestly believe the government has WAY more important issues to address at this time. example: There are 1000s of refugees AKA potential jihadists flooding into this country from syria and we are welcoming them with open arms.

its a sore subject on a never ending battle. Good luck finding the answers youre looking for!

Oh, and what he said.

 

[titsonritz]

Helpful laws? That's rich.

I suggest you do some more research if you think Obama or any left leaning politician is here to "help with guns laws".

 

[ctj]

Dear Northwest Firearms Friends,

I am from Illinois (not Chicago) where I am currently finishing my aircraft mechanic course and certification, which will be complete in two weeks. I have also been working on my residency in WA while in IL and will be in the Seattle area with my family to begin my job search upon completion of my training. I am so happy to be moving back to such a glorious state as Washington. I am a moderate, more left leaning gun owner and always will be one, and I do not understand the hostility when it comes to legal changes to laws regarding firearms to any extent.

For instance, consider Obama's legislation. He is using executive powers to push through laws that make background checks required for sellers (gun shows, etc), as well as modifying who qualifies as a "seller" so that people cannot get away with avoiding background checks without making legal repercussions much worse. He also is targeting the severe lack of funding that our Mental health system gets by providing much more cash flow going into vamping up that area of medicine and clinical treatment. Neither of those are hurting the right or ease of buying guns and owning guns, just adding a fast background check to the super minority of gun sales without checks and improving a mental health system that will aid in reducing our suicide rates (by targeting the stigma of "weakness" for getting help) and mental problems with citizens and military alike. Yet, there is a massive amount of resistance from the right side of the political spectrum for these measures currently.

I saw this news on Gov. Inslee acting on executive orders of his own to improve mental health and data sharing between local LE services and Federal LE branches, and noticed how much flak this move has been getting as well. The data sharing wouldn't hurt us in any way (the NSA already could spy on anyone of use just because), and the mental health system attention is tremendously helpful and something both the left and right agree on improving to combat the rates of people dying or hurt by firearms.

My point is that none of these laws, which the majority of people approve of (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html), would limit the ability of a responsible and legal person to get a firearm or add a huge burden to the process, but will almost certainly help with Mental health, and probably with the number of gun fatalities each year. It will, matter of fact, now make gun shows and owners look better, since the "loophole" has been eliminated, and will allow the expulsion, by legal process and the removal of credentials (FFL, etc.), of irresponsible dealers that do not perform background checks on every purchase, which make guns look bad. Background checks are pretty fast, and as a man who owns his own firearms and has gone through the process, I was shocked by how smooth the process was. A background check doesn't add any stress to the process at all, but only adds a layer of security and common sense to the equation. These laws are not anti-gun in any way, they don't say you can't own firearms, limit the numbers, or burden people with insane levels of hassle to get a firearm. These laws are not aiding in anyone's "coming for your guns" tactic either, as that logic was just created by manufacturers and lobbyists to get funding and inspire fear (with adds even more money) while benefitting the company and securing their future.

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help, don't play in to any fear mongering tactics, and will create a future that firearms are looked upon in a more positive light than what people see from the NRA now (such as this

) and other groups that are so against any change or progress to the point of dogmatism and fear mongering. Why can we not represent ourselves like the gun owners we actually are, kind, responsible, law abiding and non aggressive individuals who can approach an issue with confidence and poise.

Now, I did not mean to offend anyone by this post, but I just wanted to shed light on this issue because of how it seems there are groups that do not represent what most gun owners believe, but just the extreme points and fear creating tactics. I have not been overly aggressive, insulting or vulgar towards anyone, and I will ask that if anyone responds to my question and discussion, please treat me with the same professionalism and kindness that I have tried approach everyone here with. Thanks for your time and I hope you guys have a fantastic 2016.

This is most simple answer to you question. Because it is unconstitutional and the Federal government has no authority to regulate guns let alone make gun laws.

All the power of the Federal Government is listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 of the Constitution. Nothing in those clauses grants the Federal government the power to regulate firearms. The power not granted to the Federal government belongs to the State.

 

[Swedish K]

Let us not ignore that "O" has now put mental health professionals between a rock and a hard place - on one hand it is a violation of HIPPA regulations for them to release any information about their patients (Dr. Patient confidentiality) Unless they are clear and credible threat to themselves or others, on the other he is threatening them that should one of their patients "crack" and go on a shooting spree they can be held responsible for not reporting them as a threat to themselves or others. Talk about a way to make people seeking help be less than forthcoming with their Dr. or decide not to seek help....

 

[Certaindeaf]

Dear Northwest Firearms Friends,

I am from Illinois (not Chicago) where I am currently finishing my aircraft mechanic course and certification, which will be complete in two weeks. I have also been working on my residency in WA while in IL and will be in the Seattle area with my family to begin my job search upon completion of my training. I am so happy to be moving back to such a glorious state as Washington. I am a moderate, more left leaning gun owner and always will be one, and I do not understand the hostility when it comes to legal changes to laws regarding firearms to any extent.

For instance, consider Obama's legislation. He is using executive powers to push through laws that make background checks required for sellers (gun shows, etc), as well as modifying who qualifies as a "seller" so that people cannot get away with avoiding background checks without making legal repercussions much worse. He also is targeting the severe lack of funding that our Mental health system gets by providing much more cash flow going into vamping up that area of medicine and clinical treatment. Neither of those are hurting the right or ease of buying guns and owning guns, just adding a fast background check to the super minority of gun sales without checks and improving a mental health system that will aid in reducing our suicide rates (by targeting the stigma of "weakness" for getting help) and mental problems with citizens and military alike. Yet, there is a massive amount of resistance from the right side of the political spectrum for these measures currently.

I saw this news on Gov. Inslee acting on executive orders of his own to improve mental health and data sharing between local LE services and Federal LE branches, and noticed how much flak this move has been getting as well. The data sharing wouldn't hurt us in any way (the NSA already could spy on anyone of use just because), and the mental health system attention is tremendously helpful and something both the left and right agree on improving to combat the rates of people dying or hurt by firearms.

My point is that none of these laws, which the majority of people approve of (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html), would limit the ability of a responsible and legal person to get a firearm or add a huge burden to the process, but will almost certainly help with Mental health, and probably with the number of gun fatalities each year. It will, matter of fact, now make gun shows and owners look better, since the "loophole" has been eliminated, and will allow the expulsion, by legal process and the removal of credentials (FFL, etc.), of irresponsible dealers that do not perform background checks on every purchase, which make guns look bad. Background checks are pretty fast, and as a man who owns his own firearms and has gone through the process, I was shocked by how smooth the process was. A background check doesn't add any stress to the process at all, but only adds a layer of security and common sense to the equation. These laws are not anti-gun in any way, they don't say you can't own firearms, limit the numbers, or burden people with insane levels of hassle to get a firearm. These laws are not aiding in anyone's "coming for your guns" tactic either, as that logic was just created by manufacturers and lobbyists to get funding and inspire fear (with adds even more money) while benefitting the company and securing their future.

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help, don't play in to any fear mongering tactics, and will create a future that firearms are looked upon in a more positive light than what people see from the NRA now (such as this

) and other groups that are so against any change or progress to the point of dogmatism and fear mongering. Why can we not represent ourselves like the gun owners we actually are, kind, responsible, law abiding and non aggressive individuals who can approach an issue with confidence and poise.

Now, I did not mean to offend anyone by this post, but I just wanted to shed light on this issue because of how it seems there are groups that do not represent what most gun owners believe, but just the extreme points and fear creating tactics. I have not been overly aggressive, insulting or vulgar towards anyone, and I will ask that if anyone responds to my question and discussion, please treat me with the same professionalism and kindness that I have tried approach everyone here with. Thanks for your time and I hope you guys have a fantastic 2016.

Lol, this is a cut and paste from paid leftists expecting great entertainment from this tarbaby distraction.
You wanna see hate? Look in the mirror.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Mr. bootypir8,...
I'll try to keep this brief. First off, let's start with this statement by you:

For instance, consider Obama's legislation.

What Obama has done/is doing, is create and/or expand Administrative Rules. "Legislation" otoh, is part of the actual constitutionally outlined methodology for making laws in this country. He has failed to use that process in many instances, and certainly this one.
In short, this is NOT legislation.

He is using executive powers to push through laws ~snip~

While obama relies heavily on administrative rules to push his various agendas, they are not, by an stretch of the imagination, "legislation" and is in fact, merely one more of obama's "rules."
It remains to be seen whether or not they will even survive a court challenge to exert the force of law.

When you're done with that aircraft mechanic's course, you might want to see if the school offers a civics class.
What I've seen here suggests it could really be beneficial. While you're there, see if you can strike up a conversation on the Bill of Rights. Those are always informative too.

More than anything else, you should come away from the experience better able to understand why it's not legal for you to governed by a dictator in this country, and how as Americans, we are constitutionally bound to reject the notion of a king.
Dictators and kings like to write/make "rules" for their people to live by, which is why they are referred to as "rulers."
But since we don't allow for those things here in America, it seems Mr. Obama has once more overstepped his authority, and done so without funding.
But how we go about legally funding a rule or a law in this country is another discussion altogether.
Maybe we can have that one soon.

Have a nice day!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The reasons I dislike gun laws are:
That I am being forced to do something when I did nothing wrong.
I do not understand how a new gun law can save life.
Most gun laws are not helpful , no one will ever say "Gee I'm glad he was shot by a gun which could only hold 10 or less shots , then with one that can hold 30 or more".
It seems that as soon as one gun law is passed , another , even more restrictive one is proposed or passed.
Gun laws are out of focus , we should be focused on why Johnny felt that the only answer to his problem was to kill what was bothering him , not guns themselves.
Andy

 

[Joe13]

If you can't see that tighter gun laws will not keep criminals from using guns then you know very little about the world and how it works.

Sorry for being blunt; you are obviously intelligent, but I think largely misinformed.

On the plus side, your moving out of the armpit of the US to a decent state

 

[Goosebrown]

Bottom line is that the president is prohibited from legislating and this is legislation. If you want legislation take it to congress. If they don't pass what you want vote in new legislators and if you can't do that you can't have what you want.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Bottom line is that the president is prohibited from legislating and this is legislation. If you want legislation take it to congress. If they don't pass what you want vote in new legislators and if you can't do that you can't have what you want.

Maybe if obama had actually done some "legislating" while he was in the legislature he would understand the process better.
Just because you were "present" during the process doesn't mean you were a participant.

 

[Pops1911]

You'll shoot yer eye out kid!

 

[etrain16]

My biggest problem with the push for more gun control, whether at the state or federal level, is that no laws ever actually stop crime. Instead, they restrict the law-abiding public even further, under the guise of greater protection/security. Just look at mass shootings since the 1950's - all but two (in 2011) took place in gun free zones. That little fact right there should scare anyone. Criminals, as we all know do not follow laws, and they certainly are not deterred by them. So, introduce gun free zones and the only ones that honor them are....law-abiding citizens, while the criminal element walks right past the signs and start shooting the place up - all the while the law-abiding folks, who respect the law/rule, are left unarmed. Why should I, or anyone else, have to give up our right to self defense out of some feel-good false sense of security that is being proven over and over and over and over again to be not only completely ineffective, but creating actual targets for these people??

Something else that generates so much ire among the pro-gun community are the outright deception and misinformation coming from the President on down regarding the gun community and guns in general. For example, they keep attacking the "gun show loophole" and "internet gun sales without a BGC". A study (as I recall, by the University of Chicago), where they interviewed criminals in prison, asked where they got their guns. Gun shows were not even on the list. Nor were online sales. Yet these are the 2 areas that Obama and the rest of the anti-gun crowd go back to over and over again. Where do they get their guns? Straw purchases were at the top of the list - in other words, the bad guy gets someone they know can pass the BGC buy the gun for them. A practice that is, by the way, already illegal (a felony offense), and has been for a long time - yet it's still one of the most common ways they get their guns. That long-standing law is not exactly effective in stopping gun violence, is it? One of the other most common places they get guns? Black market sales, on the street. Again, it's already illegal to sell a gun to a known felon. And these people will never conduct a background check, regardless of the law, because they are criminals. Again, another existing law that does NOTHING. But no, let's pass more ineffective laws and attack two areas used commonly by law abiding people - gun shows and online sales. Is there an agenda having nothing to do with criminal activity at work here? Hard to see it any other way. And, by the way, I know of no online dealers that will sell you a gun without having to go through a background check at a local dealer first. If anyone is doing it without the check, they are already violating existing laws. So, why do we need even more?

Part of the problem is how soft the government is on violent offenders. Too many are released on technicalities or never even charged. Too many are still on the streets, or released on the streets over and over and over again. If someone is a known felon, with repeated violent episodes and repeated arrests, why the hell are they still on the damn streets? If we need BGC's to protect us from violent felons from getting guns, shouldn't the question be rather, why the hell is a violent felon still on the street??? The same goes for people with documented mental health issues, again, being left to themselves, untreated and unrestrained, and still able to commit these terrible acts. Background checks do not stop them. So maybe it's time to change the plan away from gun control to felon control, combined with serious mental health funding, and, I think, the reintroduction of institutions for the most seriously mentally ill. Just recently, Obama pardoned a group of criminals around the country. Two of those he pardoned were serving sentences for FELONY GUN CRIMES. Hmm, seems odd to me that a President that seems so concerned about gun crime would be willing to issue executive pardons to violent gun offenders. Shouldn't we be mad about that??

Gun owners are just as frustrated by gun violence as the anti-gun crowd. They are just as hurt, just as frustrated, and just as angry when these shootings happen. No gun owner wants to see the loss of life that has happened in these mass shooting incidents, none. I watched in absolute horror during the Sandy Hook shooting, just like eveyrone else, and like everyone else, it ripped my heart apart to see so many children murdered in cold blood - by a kid with known mental issues, using guns that were all legally purchased by his mother. We, as gun owners, disagree vehemently with the anti-gun groups strategies, because we can see, from the actual evidence, that their ideas do not work. Considering the last few mass shootings, including the non-mass shooting of the TV reporter and cameraman last year, were perpetrated by people that passed background checks, it's becoming more and more clear that BGC's are not some magic solution that will put an end to these events. In the meantime, it's costing gun buyers more money, more time and creating an unnecessary federal and state registry of gun owners, all while doing nothing to stop the shootings. Why shouldn't we be angry about that? These laws are only hurting one group - the law-abiding. And that does make me very angry.

There are more things that could be said, but I've rambled on long enough. To summarize, we already have enough laws on the books to curb gun crime, but a soft-on-criminals approach is allowing violent felons and seriously mentally ill people to not only remain on the streets, but to have access to guns via failed background checks or through avenues that bypass those checks entirely, all the while placing more and more restrictions on the law-abiding public. As long as that remains the status quo, I and others like me, will be angry with the President and everyone else that seeks to further restrict our rights based on lies and misinformation, all for some purpose I have yet to fully understand.

 

[Deebow]

"He is using executive powers to push through laws"

It is the president's job to make sure the laws are "faithfully executed" Trey Gowdy explains it better than I could:

In our Constitutional Republic, no one trusts a man that says "If you won't do what I want, I will just use my pen and phone." When he says he will just "order" it done, that sounds a lot like tyranny to me.

The problem is that we have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem, not the other way around.

While some of these ideas are workable and logical (barring someone with a mental health issue from owning a gun), the difference between the intention and the implementation is going to be a span of distance. Knowing human nature and this time in history, I promise that there will be people on that "barred" list that are there because of rumored belief or innuendo regarding their ability to responsibly exercise a right guaranteed to all human beings using a particular tool. Surveys have already shown that in the case of the SSA and their "list", over 95 percent of the names are of veterans.

And some of us that didn't have to learn Common Core history know that there was another government regime that had "lists" of people; and that didn't go so well.