Slog Comments

 

Comments (35) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I'm not one to defend my need to stockpile military style assault weapons on on any kind of rational basis, but consider this liberals; given how strongly many of us feel about our guns maybe it would be easier just to let us have them?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM · Report this
Ziggity 2
@1: Given how strongly slaveowners felt about their slaves maybe it would just be easier to let them have them? In other words, since when is conviction the imprimatur of correctness? In other other words, who told you that doing the right thing was easy?
Posted by Ziggity on February 4, 2013 at 3:32 PM · Report this
Dougsf 4
Perhaps firearms and ammunition manufactured in Washington State at the time or before its inclusion in the Union should be free of restriction.
Posted by Dougsf on February 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM · Report this
6
@1 Isn't it a little premature to be begging for mercy?
Posted by Alden on February 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM · Report this
COMTE 7
@4:

Well, that is rather the pertinent question: exactly how big IS the firearms manufacturing industry in WA state?
Posted by COMTE on February 4, 2013 at 3:42 PM · Report this
8
Anybody else notice that this bill would no longer allow the governor to prohibit, duing a state of emergency:

"The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;"

and instead...

"During the continuance of any state of emergency, neither the governor nor any governmental entity or political subdivision of the state shall impose any restriction on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition that is
otherwise authorized or guaranteed by law."

Take note all ye Portland anarchists who want to do more than just spray paint cars come, the next WTO (or whatever) riots.
Posted by slnk on February 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM · Report this
9
@#1
Please explain to me how I can ensure that harmless, somewhat nutty, basically responsible gun enthusiasts are free to build elaborate shrines to their weapon collections in their homes without simultaneously flooding the streets with cheap guns for use in crimes, accidents, drunken tragedies, and needless escalations - not to mention providing the guns for the occasional larger-scale atrocity. Explain how I make that happen, and you can keep all the guns you like.

Similarly: suppose I'm fairly convinced I could drive at 40 in school zones completely safely. Mind you, I'm probably wrong, but let's ignore that for a minute and say I'm just that good behind the wheel. Heck, let's say most people could be trusted to do that, or do drive home a bit sozzled, or what have you. It isn't necessarily the safe majority regulations need to be written for.
Posted by Warren Terra on February 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM · Report this
trstr 10
Oh Goldy, why don't you run some more close up photographs of people that you assume are mentally handicapped (or otherwise look dodgy due to facial features) buying guns? That was some sick fucked up shit that you fuckers pulled last week.
Posted by trstr on February 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM · Report this
Dougsf 11
@7 - Or for the sake of consistency, how big was the firearms manufacturing industry in Washington state in 1889? I'm not an expert, but I don't believe there was any.

Posted by Dougsf on February 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Goldy 12
@10 Really? "Mentally handicapped"...? I didn't see that in the pictures. I think you're projecting.
Posted by Goldy on February 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 13
Maybe they think the feds will try to take our MJ from us?

Either that or they want more 88 year olds killing nursing home employees?

Sad thing is, most hunters and ex-military don't buy any of these "pro-gun" arguments either.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 14
@1

Well, yes, of course. Since you have explained that you're not rational and not interested in being rational then I can't think of any reason in the world to take your guns away.

I'm seeing a bumper sticker campaign here:

You take rationality, I'll take my guns!

My love of guns is beyond all reason. Keep it that way, America.

Rational? No. Armed? Yes!

The NRA could totally use this.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 4, 2013 at 5:13 PM · Report this
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on February 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM · Report this
trstr 16
@12/Goldy:

Explain the last four photos here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Now, if you'd like to maintain that those four specific, highlighted photos are just random shots and not at all stir up fear in your readers, go right ahead. The opposite readily transparent to anyone viewing them.

And if you'd like to maintain that your highlighting - in bold typeface! - that OH MY GOD, CRAZY PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE GUNS! isn't marginalizing and demeaning those who are considered by society to be odd, or to be weird, or to be queer, well then, you're just being a typical slimy journalist.

Because, as we all know, guns are only to be used as accouterments in bars owned by Linda Derschang.
Posted by trstr on February 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM · Report this
17
@9 The 55 mph speed limit was a proven life saver, but we got rid of that because people wanted to drive fast. I don't have time to dig up any statistics on the subject, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number of lives saved by reinstating the 55 mph speed limit and passing Sen. Feinstein's assault weapons ban were about the same. Remember, 'assault weapons' are used in very few gun murders (3-5%) so the AWB wouldn't make much of a difference in overall gun violence.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM · Report this
18
Sounds more and more like the Utard republican legislators have invaded Washington State.
Posted by StuckInUtah on February 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 19
@16 - I looked at those photos, and it didn't even occur to me that this guy might be mentally handicapped. I assumed he was a Christian: he has that air of gentleness/serenity about him. But he doesn't look dumb to me.

What exactly about this guy gave you that impression? Be specific.
Posted by Free Lunch on February 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM · Report this
Goldy 20
@16 You're crazy. First of all, Kelly took those photos, and while I can't speak for her, I assume those final four were meant to illustrate a cash-for-guns sale in action.

Second, the buyer is David, who I wrote about here, and who I described as "friendly, well spoken, and knowledgable."

I don't see what you see in those pictures at all, but perhaps my perception is colored by actually meeting the guy.
Posted by Goldy on February 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM · Report this
21
No one "lets us have them". They are a right, just like all the others. Comparing gun ownership to owning slaves is just assanine. You should try and inject at least a modicum of logic in your twisted argument. If you want them so bad, just come and take them. Bring more harsh language, that should work...
Posted by DWS on February 4, 2013 at 7:05 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 22
look out, big man with a gun @21!

every right in the constitution has limits and regulations. moving the line for the 2nd a little closer to sanity is not the apocalypse.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM · Report this
Ziggity 24
@21: You might choose to read comment #1, which I was responding to. Mr. Mehlman believes that the conviction of gun owners should be sufficient reason to give up on any chance at modifying laws. By comparing his statement with slavery I was merely indicating that history has trumped this idea repeatedly and soundly.

I was not equating gun ownership with to slave ownership, but given that your immediate response to an adult conversation was to threaten violence, well, perhaps there's more to be said about how both exhibit a cowardice that fears the light of scrutiny in civil society. But if there is, I'll let you say it, as you're much more eloquent about it.
Posted by Ziggity on February 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM · Report this
25
@23 The 55 mph speed limit was originally imposed to save gas. It was kept around for so long because it saved lives. Anyway, the point is that the Assault Weapons Ban will save very few lives and will encounter stiff resistance from gun owners. Maybe Obama should focus his energy elsewhere?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM · Report this
Goldy 26
@25 Right. You're suggesting that Obama pragmatically compromise and drop efforts for an assault weapon, meeting gun owners right in the middle.... at the same time Republicans nationwide are pushing the right-wing-fringe envelope by introducing legislation like the one covered in this post.

Yeah. That would be real smart politics on Obama's part. Thanks for your helpful suggestion.
Posted by Goldy on February 4, 2013 at 8:25 PM · Report this
27
I'm inclined to conclude that republicans are quickly becoming a problem in search of a 2nd amendment solution.
Posted by Pol Pot on February 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM · Report this
28
@26 Do you think an AWB will have any meaningful impact on gun violence?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM · Report this
seatackled 29
21 can talk big, because that's what they do, but it's been noted frequently in the last few months that if the government comes after you for your guns, you're not holding them off.

We found that out today in Alabama, with good results. But I guess if you want to hold off the government for at least a few days, you can always try taking a kindergartner hostage.
Posted by seatackled on February 4, 2013 at 10:31 PM · Report this
fitzms 30
Wow, the republicans are getting fucking crazier by the second.
Posted by fitzms on February 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 32
Well, if you think it is ok to pass a law that says you do not respect federal law in regard to marijuana, why is it so crazy to think you can pass a law saying you are not going to respect federal law in regard to guns?

Obviously I would rather see lots of weed on the streets rather than guns, and I do not mean to make an equivalency based on the actual item, but is it really that surprising?

The left wants to ignore federal drug law, and the right wants to ignore federal gun law. It can cut both ways. Also, I was under the impression WA was already a "stand your ground" state. Does this law expand that idea of self-defense or something?
Posted by Theodore Gorath on February 5, 2013 at 5:41 AM · Report this
33
@32- false equivalency. Marijuana laws have resulted in massive incarceration, with racial bias, for possession of a nearly harmless substance. Washington and Colorado have begun a legal process to end an injustice.
On the other hand, no one is advocating anything other than that the language of the constitution (well regulated) be followed . Guns are not going to be outlawed, banned or confiscated. It does not cut both ways.
And no, Washington is not a stand your ground state.
Posted by Pol Pot on February 5, 2013 at 6:28 AM · Report this
Goldy 34
@32 I explained it in the post. There's a difference between not enforcing federal law and prosecuting federal agents for enforcing federal law. That's what makes this so crazy. They're threatening ATF, FBI, US Marshall, US Attorneys, etc. with five years in jail for doing their job.
Posted by Goldy on February 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM · Report this
35
Just wait until this bill goes federal. Wouldn't be surprised if something like this gets introduced by a TBagger in Congress.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM · Report this
36
The Republicans are crazy like foxes. By continuing to stir up psychotic, anti-government, insurrectionist rhetoric, they're in effect creating more and more of an incentive to further militarize domestic law enforcement until it really is utterly indistinguishable from the military. They did a great job with the drug war (which the Democrats played right into, btw) in creating police who have more weapons than most countries armies - now with all of these armed to the teeth crackpots frothing at the mouth, who's to say that instituting domestic drone programs is an unreasonable step to take against repeatedly stated threats against the federal government?
Posted by johnjjeeves on February 5, 2013 at 9:11 AM · Report this
venomlash 37
@34: Word.
Posted by venomlash on February 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 38
@34

"Just doing their jobs" that sounds familiar, never mind that their jobs are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, but Goldstein never stuck me as much of a Constitutional scholar. The repugnant little racist authoritarian who only believes that freedom only exist when it stays with in the realm of his own narrow beliefs.

This law has already passed in much of the west, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona.

I think you are living in the wrong part of the country David, perhaps you should move to New York or Chicago. Somewhere where you have more corrupt liberal politicians to lick the boots of.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM · Report this
39
For what it's worth as of 02/06/2013 the bill is locked in the House Judiciary Committee, and may die there due to not receiving a hearing. This is the response I recieved from Sen. Pam Roach.

So far, HB 1371 is not scheduled for a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. The committee chair is Representative Jamie Pedersen, whose district is the core of Seattle. As chair, Rep. Pedersen controls the agenda for that committee. Rep. Pedersen would have to be convinced HB 1371 should be heard, so the bill can be then voted to be advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee for an eventual floor vote, so it could then be passed over to the Senate for similar considerations. That's just how the process works. If the committee chair sits on the bill with no hearing, it just dies and does not continue with any chance to become law.

I'm not optimistic that Rep. Pedersen would be so disposed to give favorable consideration to HB 1371, but we can hope. In any case, though, the process at present would be for Rep. Pedersen to be convinced the bill should be heard. His email is: Jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov. His office number is (360) 786-7826.

Best of luck to you, your efforts are important.

If you want House Bill 1371 to be heard it's up to all of us to contact Rep. Jamie Pedersen and remind him that when he was sworn in he took an oath to protect the rights of the PEOPLE, this includes the second amendment regardless of his personal beleifs.
His email is: Jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov.
His office number is (360) 786-7826
Posted by torqtec on February 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.