Why so much hate on helpful laws?

[BanjoGeek]

In 1939 a lot of people thought that adolf was not doing anything bad and only wanted to help people with "good laws." Unarse the head here.

 

[dobeman]

this thread started in January, is still going, and the OP has posted only 3 times, in January. Called stirring the pot.

 

[whiskeybill]

Yes, gun laws are supposed make crime go away, just like the affordable care act was supposed make healthcare more affordable. That is playing out as advertised too, right?

 

[whiskeybill]

this thread started in January, is still going, and the OP has posted only 3 times, in January. Called stirring the pot.

Nothing like starting some good solid debate, huh? A debate they can't win, at least not here.

 

[kilimanjaro]

I wouldn't mind universal background checks, or the mental health initiatives, if that's all they truly were. But it is a matter of fact that every proposal made by the left is just one more stepping stone in their path to gun confiscation and the elimination of the 'gun culture' enjoyed by the American people.

Look at the UBC law here in Washington, just passed. There was no exception for CCW permit holders or FFL03 licensees. None. The objective was to make it as much of a burden as possible to transfer a firearm between persons. There was no attempt to define a transfer as a transfer of title, or ownership, to which the law would apply, but merely a hand-off to a friend at the range constitutes a transfer under the law. Currently, no one is enforcing that definition, but that will change, and that is the intent of the wording as it was written and passed into law. Someone will transfer a firearm to another, that currently 'does not rise to the level of a violation', and that other person will use it to kill a few people. Then guess what the level of a violation is going to be in this state.

The VA is reporting people who need help with their checkbooks as 'mentally deficient' and their firearms are being taken or forced to be transferred. No one intended that to be the law, except the people who wrote it.

The short answer is, the left absolutely cannot be trusted on this issue. Not one bit. They will lie, and keep lying, as long as they can get away with it.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

does shall not infringe ring a bell? and no the well regulated part had nothing to do with being regulated by Gov't
several of our founders said something like no majority, or Congress has the right to infringe upon inalienable rights.
Background checks are infringements and I will not support them ever. GOA/ Gun owners of America has made it perfectly clear they do no support any kind of hoop to jump through in order to exercise your second amendment rights. These background checks started back in the 90's under Clinton, now look how much further they've gone. What started out as only felons have migrated over to misdemeanors. If people can't see the writing on the wall with all these so called fell good legislations, then were pretty much doomed.
want to help the mentally ill? then do so stop making us pay because some whack job might go off.

 

[Member 5605]

I quit reading the OP when I saw "a vast majority of Americans support"....

No, a vast majority does not support. Besides, a real vast majority support "shall not be infringed".


The list should not be an approval list, it should be a denial list. A simple phone call and ask "is Johnny PoPo on this list?", if not then here is your firearm. No records keeping as that's not needed. The list should have bad guys, not good guys.

 

[ArtBrownSr]

Rick Benjamin, you make a lot of sense! They want to hear EXACTLY how we feal and counter it with their logic/agenda I wish to remind folks that this is a case of whoever is the hardest head will survive, yet we need to be able to speak clearly our position and reason for our position.

 

[dude23]

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.

I use to feel basically the same way, but paid little attention to politics in general until Jan 2013 when politicians started the authoritarian attack on guns & legal gun owners.

I've always been a pretty open minded person that is skeptical of authority & especially government, politicians & corporations/bankers. Luckily I grew up in a house where my parents were free thinking & questioned motives of gov politicians, etc. They were basically socially liberal but believed in conservative government (or classical liberal / slightly libertarian).

When I started looking at the laws that were proposed & thought logically about if it would really do anything to stop violence I came to the conclusion that for the most part it wouldn't. There is always a way for someone intent on criminal activity & violence to find the tools & means to do so.

A few examples:

• Gasoline, flammables, etc. - these can be used to do much physical harm to people & property with a much larger chance of not being caught. Even if sales are restricted it's easy to make by anyone with a few baking ingredients, a heat source & a make shift still.

• Automobiles - the same as above, but more expensive or requires theft of vehicle prior to other criminal acts & more likely to get caught or die during criminal act.

• Knives, edged weapons - very cheap, very easy to make by anyone with marginal skills. Less likely to kill a large number of people, but easy to harm large numbers of people until someone disarms them or shoots them.

All these fall into the same type of potential for regulation as firearms, but all will never be able to be eliminated. Therefore the only people negatively affected are honest people who were supposedly the people the law was to protect.

What it boils down to is freedom & human decency. The chance of individual freedom is greatly reduced when large government agencies regulate people's lives. You can't legislate crime into extinction, it can rarely even be greatly reduced, so all these laws do is give politicians power over honest people.

The only way we can hope to keep individual freedom & diminish crime & violence is to have stable two parent families that instill values of human decency in their children, schools that educate them on ideas of liberty & it's history, civics, government, etc. & to have an economy that enables families to start small businesses & a monetary system that is not based on debt usury that forces people to invest into the corrupt Wall St. Casino for any chance to keep the product of their labor from losing value through inflation.

It's that simple, but the ultra rich don't want that. That would give the people too much power & they would lose too much money. A public that is divided & afraid is a public that is easy to control & manipulate, most importantly they are easier to fleece through depressions & wars.

 

[dude23]

I quit reading the OP when I saw "a vast majority of Americans support"....

No, a vast majority does not support. Besides, a real vast majority support "shall not be infringed".


The list should not be an approval list, it should be a denial list. A simple phone call and ask "is Johnny PoPo on this list?", if not then here is your firearm. No records keeping as that's not needed. The list should have bad guys, not good guys.

Yeah, but who says what is defined as "bad" & who oversees who's added to that list. This is the problem with the watch list & no fly list, no one can tell you specific qualifications to be on the list & there is virtually no way to get off it. It took Ted Kennedy over a year to get removed from the no fly list, how long do you think it would take one of us?

 

[titsonritz]

The best part of this thread is that it shows we still have the freedom of speech to discuss what's on our minds.

You shut-up.

 

[DuneHopper]

To side step this message by the OP alleged troll.
I bring you a Butterfly to distract you.

 

[Diamondback]

Ask any Indian how good Government is at keeping their word and honoring promises.

 

[U8395279]

this thread started in January, is still going, and the OP has posted only 3 times, in January. Called stirring the pot.

The term "beating a dead horse" could also be applied to this thread:

 

[Brutus57]

Here's my short and to the point answer. Illinois has extremely strict gun laws and yet one is safer walking through Baghdad than in the S side of Chicago. Any gun law that impedes any law abiding citizen from purchasing or selling a firearm is AN INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd Amendment. Period, if you can't understand that then turn over your guns as the prez and his minions will protect you because we all know the Democrats have wiped out gun crime in every city they have run for decades....well, I guess not. And when you neighbor who you just yelled at him and his dawg for crapping in your yard calls the local LEOs because he thinks you are unstable and just last week he saw you all cammoed up with firearms you were loading into your SUV.....next week SWAT shows up at your door with an armored vehicle as you return from work, cuff, perp walk you while your wife and kids watch in horror as they toss your home for any conceivable weapon from a finger nail clipper to your Benelli shotgun you water fowl hunt with....yeah, last week was opening of snow geese season...oh yeah, you have no recourse and there was no due process. You go to jail because of some goofy neighbor who thinks his dawg's crap doesn't stink.....sound far fetched and common sense gun law wise. No on both cases. Not to dawg pile open but listen, learn and study for yourself, yes, they do want you guns exactly the way the Nazis and the Soviets disarmed their citizens.

Welcome to the Evergreen State, you are either with us or against us. It is as simple as that. Congrats on your A&P, my dad turned his into a left seat on a United 727.

Brutus out

 

[Chee-to]

thebootypir8 was last seen:
Jan 14, 2016

 

[Diamondback]

Supports the Drive-By Troll theory... we should keep this thread, though, as an example of what to watch for and a place to practice our "punch back twice as hard".

 

[Brutus57]

My MMA fighting nephews would say that sort of talk demands a throat punch...yes we may have run that troll back under a bridge.

Brutus out

 

[bnsaibum]

Supports the Drive-By Troll theory... we should keep this thread, though, as an example of what to watch for and a place to practice our evisceration.

I think it reads better this way. YMMV

 

[Diamondback]

Defenestration is always fun too... and it's *serious* when the window you toss 'em out of is third-floor or higher.