Why so much hate on helpful laws?

[balaperdida]

To the OP: The only common-sense action is to repeal CGA68. Every compilation of data that I have seen shows increasing firearms homicide rates following this Act until the 1990, when the rate leveled off, the began to fall. We are still not back to the pre-CGA68 rates.

 

[titsonritz]

So far the OP has generated 2.3333 pages per post, good going everyone.

 

[Velzey]

7 pages.....

 

[U201491]

7 pages.....

yep

 

[Ura-Ki]

Sick isn't it!!! But I did get "HER" squirming a bunch and backing way off her position! WIN!!!!!

 

[PaulB47]

Guess I missed the fun.

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help

As a believer in the government religion (like many here), it is natural for you to be confused.

Those in government, like all of us, work in their own interest. They do not do what they do, for us. They do it for themselves. Do you really think your interests are aligned perfectly with those of federal bureaucrats? Do you think the regulations will always go only as far as seems reasonable to YOU, and no further?

Many of the federal agencies started out with soothing words about how they could "help". The intentions were always good. But that doesn't last for long. There is a reason we now have 2.3 million Americans in jail. Think about the war on drugs. The same factors operating there, are operating in every federal agency.

 

[Ligito]

Most of what Obama has stated is already in place.
He wants to sound like he is introducing new stuff, but isn't.

 

[aikikenjitsu]

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.

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.

Obama has been hurting the U.S. since he came into office. The government, especially him, has a tenancy to chip away at something till they get 100%. They get everything they want on the gun laws and we can guarantee you that they will come back with more bills against the 2nd amendment. Eventually we will not be able to carry guns in public and will be real targets for terrorists. If we have a gun at home, it would probably be a one round gun. Remember, "When seconds count, the police is only minutes away." This is the truth. Good luck!
Sifu

 

[accessbob]

AWESOME EXPLANATION BELOW

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.

 

[uberguy]

Seven pages of replies so far, read a few not all.

I don't believe the OP, not for a minute. Everytown For Gun Prohibition instructed their army of web bots to start posing as gun owners and NRA members for sensible limits.

This guy is a mole and quotes all the standard lines.

 

[uberguy]

I think it's a shame all members here couldn't respond to this person in an intelligent, respectful fashion, or stay out of it. When some of us look bad it reflects on all of us.

As usual etrain16, well written.

Well, that's just too damn bad - in my view this guys a fraud., posing as one of us to sow dissent in the ranks. Looks like he got to you, again I say that too bad.

No comprise - ever

 

[accessbob]

I just quickly read all 7 pages - now trying to help it go to 8 - ttthhhhhhhhhhhpppppptttt!!!! LOL

 

[bbbass]

O'Bummer's admitted his agenda long ago. He doesn't believe in private ownership of arms. With terms like "common sense" and "hate" there can be no realistic discussion of issues because these prejudice the arguments before they are even begun.

 

[tionico]

Let me resoond as a long time resident of Washington and a gun owner. First, let me tell you about the first gun I bought after I moved here. I lived in Vancouve. I hopped into my car, drove ACROSS the river into Oregon, walked into a GI Joes store in Delta Park, just across the line. I saw the rifle I wanted, told him I wanted to buy it, he said "that one's a demo, let me get a sealed one from the back" OK fine. The price was $79.95, Oregon has no sales tax. I pulled out four twenty dollar bills, dropped them on the counter, he picked them up, poked the cash register which stuck its drawer out, he dropped the four pieces of green paper with pictures of presidents on them, pulled out a Jefferson Nickel, put that in my hand along with a cash register ticket, we shook hands, and I walked out. That was the ENTIRE TRANSACTION. He never even asked my NAME nor place of residence. And that sale was fully legal, its now ALL gun sales in the US happened in those days. That rifle has sent thousands of rounds down the tube, and has hurt or harmed no one and nothing. And as long as I own it never will... unless in self defense.

Maybe three years ago I was approached by a long time friend of mine, asking if I was interested in an old military rifle he had, and had shown me about a year before. He'd decided to sell it for money to get a handgun he wanted. SURE< I said. I loved that rifle, beautiful. I wrote him a checkand he had to go elsewhere so he instructed me to drop by the house later that day, he'd call his daughter who was home (she was 17 at the time) and she'd get the rifle for me. I did, she did, and I am still very pleased and proud to call that one mine. And more than a few to whom I've showed it are jealous of it. That man has been a long time concealed carry guy, does a fair bit of shooting, and happens to be an elder in my church, besides a good friend. No one would eer bat an eye at the way that sale came down.... then. Now, we'd have a few felons in jail and/or paying large fines to support some fat cats who rule us.

Here is how taht sale would have to go down today, thanks to a foreign rabble rouser Michael Bloomburg who unilaterally decided it was HIS bidniss to infest Washington with a law that does not affect HIM at all (fact is, he is above all gun laws, ahd has proven this many times). SO... now I could not hand him the check, First, he would have had to go to a FFL dealer and effect the transfer to his underage daughter.. oh, wait SHE cannot possess that rifle she is too young to do so legally. She cERTAINLY cannot do so through an FFL. OK, so we're dead in the water. Suppose we decide to wait until we both have time to head off to the FFL. Fine.. that means about 150 miles of driving and four hours (if he's not busy) of my time, and he taking time off work and driving 50 miles to the FFL. We have to pay him $50 for his "services" , THEN Washington State Sales Tax is collected and added to the tab. See how much that helps? Nah, I didn't either. Same sale, differnt set of infringements. OK, xo we suffer through all that nonsense (I also have my Mother May I Card, which means I've goine through a background check far more extensive than the required NICS check to buy the gun now. ). What if some fine day I want to go over to his house again, with THAT rifle, and we do a bit of hole poking in paper in his backyard? (safe and legal there). Fine, I take my rounds, then he asks me if HE can have a turn, just for old time's sake. I say FINE>.. oh wait, before he can put his hands on his old rifle that is now mine, we have to put the rifle in the car, drive fifty miles to FFL and pay him AGAIN to transer it to him, pay the sales tax again, drive back to his yhouse, he takes his ten rounds, now its legally HIS gun and I can't get it back without... you guessed it, insane as it is, traipsing back to the FFL who will, per Bloomburg's request, fleece us AGAIN for the BGC and tax. I have researched it, THIS is the new law in Washington. And you wonder why we "hate on" such ridiculous laws? You tell me....
Now, lets look at a few of the recent high profile shootings that cause all the hooh hahs back east to demand background checks and such. Ready? San Bernardino. Four guns involved, Two handguns bought by perp, with BGC, complying with all California's stupid laws. Two long guns, bought by pal, BGC, registered per CA laws.. then resold to perp private sale no BGC no registry change, contrary to CAlifornia's insane laws. Further, one of the handguns was given to his "bride>, again, no BGC, no re-registration. ONE of those guns was lawfully in the hands of its user that day, out of four. California's stupid laws make gun ownership hell fot the locals, but are easily ignored. SHE could never have legally bought in California, was not yet a full resident, illegal. Out of four BGC"s required, one was properly done. Three of the four transfers into the hands that used them that day were ILLEGAL:, yet happened anyway. Big help all tnhose stupid laws arel right? ALL those guns were illegally introduced into a gun free zone... that wasn't quite gun free, was it? Only for the victims, Sigh..... fat lot of good THAT does.

How about Ft Hood #1. Legally bought handguns. Illegally carried into a gun free zone. The guy also had significant mental issues, as verified by testimony AFTER the fact. Oh, but he was mozzie and no one wanted to risk "profiling" accusations. So it was never dealt with. The mental health data were there, no extra funding for "research" needed. It was blocked by stupid PC fears of "profiling".

Colorado SPrings shooting (falsely known as the Planned Parenthood shooting, but PP were not his target, only a conventient shelter after his bank robbery up the street. If it had been a pizza joint no one would be referring to it as the PP (Pizza Parlour) shooing). Felon in possession, thus prohibited. Gun's origin not clear, but HE had it legally. ALL the rules in place prohibting his possession were ignored and violated. Mental health issues as well, same story as Ft Hood 1 shooter. Known, not reported.

Tulalip *Marysville)school shooting last year. Underage kid stole handgun, brought to school campus. Four felonies right there. Did that stop him? I wish... so do a bunch more folks. Mental healt issues as well, unreported as well.

Arurora Colorado theatre shooting. Guns bought through legal channels, illegaly brought into "gun free zone" (which really waasn't, was it? ) Perp had serious mental issues, not addressed because no one wanted to bother. He was on SSRI's, unstable, several significant people had reported, authorities did nothing. Oh, and no one else in that flickerhouse was armed, per Colorado law, Thus no one could stop the perp. This whole thing reeks of a false flag op.

And the "big one", the one had the kinyun leaking fake tears.. Sandy Hook. Ever thought how many felonies that perp committed between the time right after he murdered his own Mother, and when he busted into the school and had not yet shot anyone? SOmewhere near forty. YES.. underage possession of loaded handgun in public, times at least two, loaded wepon in vehicle, x 4, underage concealed handgun, x2, concealed weapon without permit,z2, and on and on it goes. NONE of the many draconian "common sense gun safety laws" stopped him, he just ignored and violated about forty of them and went anyway. And that does not include any of the felony murders he alledgedly commited, does it? He also had SERIOUS mental issues, his Mum had cried for help, no one listened.

ALL these stupid laws do NOTHING to stop the violence, but they DO cost we the People time and money, and from time to time catch one or another of us out in some nonsense violation. I"m sure you read of the Mum in Philidalphia who worked hard, complied, got her Mother May I Card, got her handgun to protect her two little girls, and was fine.. until she drove across a bridge into Cherry Hill... NEW JERSEY. For anyone to possess any firearm there, they must have their FOID card.. a sort of Mother May I card that "allows" one to possess or buy a firearm. ONLY RESIDENTS can get them, they cost well over $100, take six weeks of more to get, and the local LE can simply decide SHE oughtn;t have a gun, and deny the pproval. ONE MAN, on whim, can deny anyone their God-given right to arms. Just Like That. No basis or reason eed be given, no due process to redress the denial. She was arrested, her gun confiscated, charged wiht several felony counts, her car impounded, her two children went, I never did learn where but I'm certain it was traumatic for them, FOR WHAT? For doing on the south end of that bridge what ehe'd been doing daily for months in the north side of it. Revenue generation for ChristyLand.

Here in Washingtn there is a private organisation holds gun shows monthly in s few parts of the state. To enter the show, everyone must either A, be a mamber of the club, or B, pay a fsmall fee. Fine. What do you think it takes to be a member? A BACKGROUND CHECK, just like the one to buy a gun. Who can buy, sell, trade, handle firearms at those shows? ONLY MEMBERS. The cash paying public can NOT handle or buy firearms. If they do, the MEMBER who had it on his table is summarily packed up and escorted to the door, relieved of his membership credentials, and he can, if he desires, appeal his ejection from the show and the club. After one year he can petition to rejoin.. and MUGHT be granted a one year provisional membership. But guess what? Since Bloomburg bought that new law, despite the FACT that no sales heppen inside that building wihtout a background check at some point, every sale now must go through a fiully licensed FFL, For a fee. And time. For people who ALREDY have a far more extensive NGC than the one required for NICS.

and you wonder why we hate on the new stupid laws? Because they are NOT "common sense" Obama wants every sale with an FBI BGC because HE has in view full registration, paving the way to full confiscation. Don't believe me? Learn what is happening in New Yoirk State, California, and amongst war veterans.
Obama's new nightmare "wishes" (none have the force of law, as only the legislature can make law) are carefully designed to create a full database for ALL sellers, new purchasers, and the guns involved in BGC. WHY else would the information about the gun be a required part of the paperwork, if not to identify WHO has WHICH gun? If all that was required is for me to have a BGC to make sure I'm "clean" (my Mother May I Card already proves that beyond any question) I could maybe tolerate it. But no, HE wants the full record of the transaction recorded AND KEPT, as they are now doing in Oregon. Buyer AND SELLER, with full particulars on the gun transfered, must be recordd and kept. THIS is a clear path to universal registration, and WE HATE THAT It is illegal and dangrous. Honest gun owners are NOT the problem,. As the few examples above show, the laws never stop the law breakers who ignore them and get theirguns anyway. Washington have a stupid law that on one can be inside a liquor establishemnt while possessing a firearm. So? Guns and booze don't mix. Fine, in Oregon I can BE IN THERE as long as I'm not drikinng, I'm not mixing guns and alcohol. So, what does that mean in Washington? Stop at any tavern, roadhouse, bar, club, where one must be 21 to enter, in Washington, look at the car park, and mark, in your mind, every one that has the Browing logl the S&W, Ruger's eagle, an NRA patch, a Molon Labe bumper sticker, guess what? Every one of those cars are owned by someone who likes guns, most likely had one with them as they drove to the establishment, KNOWS he cannot have it inside, and thus has left it in the car, which MUST be locked (good idea) by state law.... and is inside the tavern not watching through the window. Any idea how often those cars are broken into and the guns found and stolen? Far more frequent that LE care to admit. The police reports mostly only show "car prowl" as the incident. But that is a ready source for handguns for those who cannot buy them legally. No BGC required, and certainly no sales tax paid.

For a horrifying idea of how Obama's "mental health" cures will come down, check out California's brand new law purporting to "deal" with this. NO DUE PROCESS. Just on someone's say so, a man's guns can be taken summarily, and held for up to a year, at which tiem he can petitioin, to get an opportunity to PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT (contrary to the constitution, maybe?) and the state may, or more likely will not, return them, but most likely will decide "not just yet, come and pay the fee and you can talke to us again in another year> Obama's proopsed dealing will line the pockets of chosen "research" facilities to condust bogus "giun violence and mental health studies with pre-determined conclusions, to "justify" further unlawful denials of fundamental rights. Veterans, and now Social Security recipients are bing screened, and the lslightest excuse results in their guns being taken. This IS already happening. When is the last time you heard of a Veteran or a guy on SS Disability staging a shootemup? That's what I thought.

Just a few reasons why WE HATE THESE NEW GUN LAWS; They "fix" nonexistent "problems" (there IS no "gun show loophole"), create unlawful hassle and expense for we who already keep the laws, (a hundred millin gun owners and we only had ten thousand gun homicides last year? Half a million Mother May I Card holders in Washingotn, and there were ONLY 22 gun homicides in 2014? And NONE of those were committed by anyone who has the Mother May I Card..... what does that say? WE law abiding gun owners are NOT the problem,

If you DO decide to move to Washington, I'd recommend getting involved with your local NRA< with the Washington Arms Collectors, your local range (s amall community range is better than the "destination" types where you have to make an appointment well in advance). Enjooy your stay, and I'm sure you'll eventually begin to understand WHY we hate these new stupd regs.. that put illegal burdens on US< and do NOTHING to evel slow down the"gun crime"/ And lead directly to full registration, something we can NOT afford. If that does take effect here, you can bet a bunch of us will "forget" to "register" guns we;ve owned that have no paper trail directly back to us. Let them become ghost guns about which the gummint is ignorant. Just as in New York and Connecticut, where somewhere near a tenth of the guns mandated to be resgistered have been..... and the states know this and are powerless to DO anything.

 

[x2ndxall]

Best thread ever

 

[tionico]

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??



excellent, but for one minor quibble: we now have three mass shootings that did NOT happen in gun free zones: The Arizona parking lot shooting that killed a nine year old girl, the intended assassination target, (a judge) and wounded that US rep/sen GIfford, then there was the Lakewood Washignton coffee shop shooting where a felon in possession and in violation of his parole, as well as under indictment for two more serious charges, obtaind illegall a handgun from a relative and murdered four policemen on break; and recently, the Colorado Springs shooting that is falsely labelled the Planned Parenthood shooting, which took place on the streets between the Chase bank the guy robbed, and the building where he'd sought refuge as he fled police, ALL his victims wre on the streets or parking lots. None were insice the building. If that structure had housed a pizza joint, it would NOT be referred to as the PP (Pixxa Parlour) shooting.. but those streets were NOT "gun free zones". So, three since 1950 or so. ALL the rest in gun free zones that were NOT really "gun free",were they?

 

[ClickBang]

I don't feed anti freedom trolls. Stay away. We don't need more of your ilk to hasten the decline of our once free and wonderful place to live.

 

[308]

thebootypir8

 

[oknow]

View attachment 272646thebootypir8View attachment 272647

WELL SAID

 

[x2ndxall]

View attachment 272646thebootypir8View attachment 272647

I see you're using the dislike button.