One word: "Unconstitutional." End of discussion.

The 2007 collapse of the financial economy is the death of the urb.

Guns become prevalent as obsolete cities plummet into decay and feral arms bums harass the dwindling populace.

As Seattle depopulates and the People spread into the clean countryside, dog-eat-dog takes hold.

Those Living In The City will envy the dead.

I've been waiting for the chance to post this link for a while now. From Daily Kos, no less, "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment."

I'm usually on the side of gun owners (i.e., I'm not in favor of strong gun control laws). However, reading the mayors five proposals really doesn't seem out of line to me. He's not barring anyone from owning or carrying a gun who isn't licensed to do so.

Basically, he wants to increase penalties for people when kids unlawfully get guns and when people sell guns illegally.

I see nothing wrong with that. People should have the right to have as many guns as they want, but ONLY if they are lawfully trained and licensed. I have no problem with tough penalties for people who violate gun laws.

Alright, well as usual you used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. And one day people will realize gun control laws accomplish nothing except make sure guns stay in the hands of criminals and not lawful citizens. I wonder how exactly Portland expects to close its borders to gun trafficking, and get rid of the ones already there. But hey. Who doesn't like sheep bleating as they go along, secure in the knowledge that their neighbor can only stab them, bludgeon them, beat them, but not SHOOT them...

I love civil liberties as much as the next person but what is proposed is hardly against a persons ability to protect themselves.

Here is what is proposed:
-Hold adults accountable when a child obtains their gun with out any type of security or prevention
-Set a curfew for juveniles who have been convicted of gun crimes
-Make it illegal to not report your gun lost/stolen
-Increase the penalty of loaded guns in public
-Prohibits gun law violators to carry guns in the city limits

Anytime someone tries to hold gun holders accountable for their firearm people scream about the constitution and civil liberties. You'd think people would want a little separation between responsible and irresponsible firearm ownership.

Urgutha, I don't need a "license" to exercise a constitutional right.

That said, sure, I'm all in favor of busting scumbags' balls. Go for it.

There's no disconnect. Weak gun laws help racists and NRA who want to see urban blacks kill urban blacks.

@3, where did I say "gun ban." It is this willful confusion that fuels gun ideology. Gun people do not want any responsibility for gun ownership. It really is amazing. It's as if guns are toys or something! I mean, there should be an actual law against drinking and packing, in the way there's a law against drinking and driving. that's the seriousness I'm talking about.

@11 - I have never agreed with Charles Mudede more than right now, and I may never again.

" I mean, there should be an actual law against drinking and packing, in the way there's a law against drinking and driving."

Yeah, that really stops people from driving drunk. Ahem.

You know, there's really no effective law here against "drinking and packing" (well, there's a law, but it doesn't define "drunk," so it's worthless). I can and do carry in bars. Funny thing is, you don't open the newspaper to stories about drunken people blowing each other away in bars every day. Funny how that works.

I fully support gun rights (I am a liberal gun owner and wrote my local legislators to object to recent gun control efforts in WA) but I don't feel these changes proposed in PDX are much of a threat to gun rights. What I do object to is cities and other localities making specific gun laws, it should happen only at the state level to prevent a messy patchwork of laws that nobody can keep straight. I'm glad WA has state preemption so the bullshit Nickels tried to push through was so quickly struck down. What Adams is proposing doesn't go nearly that far and probably won't accomplish much even if it gets on the books.

5280 @8,

That's the problem though. The 2nd amendment really needs to be revised. We don't live in the era of muskets and "maximum 3 or 4 shots per minute" anymore. It's no longer harmless to just let anyone who wants guns have instant and easy access to them (not that was ever really "harmless," but relative to today)

Like I said, I'm totally in favor of allowing guns to people who demonstrate responsibility with them, understand their power, and actively protect them from theft or accidental use. They can have as many guns as they want in my opinion. Fully automatic. High calibre. Grenades. Whatever. I'd be fine with all that.

What I'm NOT fine with is irresponsibly letting anyone who wants a gun have one just because it's their constitutional right. Fuck that. That's how criminals get them, from irresponsible fuckwits who don't repect guns' power and leave them lying around to get stolen or selling them to the shady guy down the street.

I'm all for people's right to own guns, but not if it's going to directly conflict with everyone else's rights to living. If people want to exercise their right to own guns, they'd better damn well demonstrate their ability to do so first.

@11 Well said Mr. Mudede, completely agree.

A couple fun gun facts:
"Firearm—In 2007, 31,224 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.1 percent of all injury deaths that year." (according to the 2007 National Vital Statistics Report via the CDC on page 19).

Children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Youth Violence via CDC). They're 16 times more because other industrialized countries have ZERO youth deaths via firearm.

Ah, yes, there's always one nitwit who starts throwing statistics around.

OK, you do know that the "firearm death" statistic includes suicides, right? And that it also includes legitimate shootings, including cops, right?

And you also know that "children" includes everyone under the age of 21, right? That includes a whole lot of gangbangers.

Urgutha, good luck with changing the Second Amendment. In a country that hasn't even ratified the Equal Rights Amendment yet, where 50% of all households have a gun, the chances of that happening aren't even worth discussing.

5280,
Oh, I know the second amendment is going to stay exactly as it is. I was just giving a little soapbox rant.

Charles, you say you didn't mention a gun ban and that is true, but have you ever posted anything positive (or even neutral) about guns or gun owners? Would you ban private ownership of guns if you had that power? What state do you think has the best gun laws?

As for responsibility, you are making a sweeping generalization. There are many irresponsible people, that is true, but that is the nature of people, not guns. I have no problem with a criminal background check before purchasing a gun and anyone who commits a crime should be punished. But most gun owners I know are more responsible with their guns and most people are with their cars. I don't hang out with a lot of meth cookers and gang bangers, gun owners are a more diverse group than most on the left care to recognize.

Also, concealed carry in WA is prohibited in bars...

@13: the DD laws stop MOST people from driving drunk - significantly more than before the 8.0 was set. just because it is still possible to violate this law doesn't mean the law is ineffective.

the story i did read about frequently were bars where guns are not permitted, forcing men go to their cars after the closing to fetch them, and shots ensue in the street. yee-haw. how well-regulated.

@17 How is suicide or police shootings (being shot at, and shooting at a civilian) not gun violence? That's just silly season.

If you are a responsible gun owner, these policies should not effect your gun loving lifestyle at all.

I really hope you're not as stupid as you sound in that last post.

I want my gun near by for when the packs of baboons raid my home.

@15 we also don't live in a world with hand operated printing presses and scribe's quill pens. Does that imply that the 1st amendment should be "revised"? It is not the technology at issue, it is the concept that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, equal to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and all the rest.

You can argue the supposed "intent" of the framers all day long, but it is clear that the bill of rights is intended to protect the freedom of individuals against the power of the state.

tag is closed now

@24,
Am I to assume, then, that you're in favor of removing ALL restrictions to access to guns? Anyone can have any kind of firearm any time they want? After all, technology's not an issue and it's no use arguing the intent of the framers, so if a criminal with paranoid schizophrenia wants to have an AK-47 with an attached grenade launcher, he should be allowed that because that's his Constitutional right?

The constitution and bill of rights should be a flexible document, not an inflexible straightjacket. The second amendment, imo, SHOULD be revised with changes in technology.

Remember, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I'm not even arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns like the one I described above. But I AM arguing that people who are clearly a danger to themselves or others, and people who have demonstrated a clear lack of responsibility and understanding with guns should have their right to bear arms revoked or at least suspended until they learn responsibility.

It's good for citizens to have guns to have authority over the state, it's not good for citizens to have guns who clearly care nothing about the state and simply want to shoot other citizens.

We can, and should, be an armed citizenry, but we don't need to be careless at the same time.

Good idea in theory, Urgutha, but who decides? You? Me? Or someone we don't even know, who may have a completely different agenda? What do they use as a basis for that determination? Your past mental history? That might very well include people who are perfectly fine now. It could also include a lot of veterans.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, just that there are no "easy" answers.

5280,
Naw, I don't really have a great answer... I guess I'm just doing more soapbox ranting. I find I get into this discussion with friends a lot since I'm pretty liberal but definitely have some non-typical-liberal leanings, the gun control debate being one of them.

5280 is the new Will in Seattle.

What?!? Will in Seattle is usually correct on subjects he knows about?

@30: Nah. 5280 is equating the right to keep and bear arms with the right for anyone to carry any weapon anywhere. We don't let civilians own Javelins or FlaK guns for a reason, and there's nothing unconstitutional about banning people with serious criminal records from owning firearms. We don't let felons vote, right?

Unless you are a cop, you should not be carrying a gun in a city. Because of the nature of the city, it is virtually impossible to discharge a firearm without breaking the law - even if by some miracle you haven't committed murder, manslaughter, or reckless endangerment, there's still the noise ordinance. And if you can't discharge it, there is no reason to carry it.

Therefore, any non-cop who carries a gun in a city should be assumed to be either a criminal or so stupid he poses a danger to others. Self defense? Don't be stupid. When confronted with an armed non-cop who is threatening you, the appropriate response is to run screaming. It's much more likely to result in not dying than pulling a gun out!

Apart from the criminality and stupidity inherent in carrying a gun in a city, there is also the fact that it represents an insult. Carrying a gun is appropriate and proper only in places where civilization is thin or absent. This appropriateness is the reason rural folk love their guns so - in rural areas, many opportunities exist to lawfully and usefully discharge a firearm. But in a city, bringing a gun with you implies that you think there's a nontrivial chance the town can't take care of itself and that something will need shooting while you're there. This is a brazen insult to the character of the people around you and the prerogatives of the police force. In town, we neither need nor want vigilantes! Enforcing the law, and the legitimate use of force, belongs solely to the duly appointed, trained, and democratically controlled police force, and any attempt to horn in on their action is a usurpation of them and the people who control them through their institutions.

Bottom line: get your damn firearms out of my town and back into the wilderness where they belong!

The notion that the state has a monopoly on the use of force is an unamerican abomionation. That's how Europen political theory looks at it, not how we do things here. This is most assuredly a reserved right, something we did not grant to the state inb our original social contract. It is part of out constitutional schema, it is enshroined in most state constitutions, and it is given expression in our righ to trial by jury. The petty tyrant may wish that our people were solely dependent on lo Stato for their safety, but the twelve good men and true are there to say otherwise. So it is that, unlike Europe, our laws enshrine self-defense among our principles of justification, and juries acquit in most cases of bona fide "good-guy" verrsus "critter" shootings.