New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

speedbird49

Active Member
I am hoping to be a gun owner in the future. From what I understand about guns, restrictions on ammunition and firearm types are more for show than actually keeping us safe. I have no problem on requiring firearm ownership to be registered, and requiring someone to be able to show that they are mentally and physically competent enough to operate a firearm. There are no shortage of videos on the internet as to why giving anyone a gun is a bad idea. I am not sure I am opposed to a waiting period either, particularly when it comes to preventing suicide. Firearm suicide is an instant decision that requires very little effort to undergo. But the specification of "semi autos" "high capacity magazines" and "muzzles" makes no sense. Every mass shooting I have read about wasn't a split second decision, it was premediated.

Pretty funny these restrictions were introduced by a Texan I must say
 

speedbird49

Active Member
How about a fee to vote then.. yes owning a gun and ammo is as important as voting.
Funny enough I am consistent on my position with firearm ownership and voting for 18-20 year olds: I think both are not competent enough to do either. I say this fully understanding that I would be disenfranchised from voting. It isn't a question about intelligence, but life experience. At this age you have just barely entered the real world, and still hang on to the cliquish mentality of high school and underclass college.

Actually, I think in a lot of circumstances, a ballot in the hand of an 18 year old is more dangerous than a gun
 

Upton O

Blind hog fisherman
I grew up with a bunch of firearms that were unsecured in our house. My dad kept three handguns in a bag in his closet, a location we NEVER entered without his permission.

My closet had a 20 gauge pump, .410 pump, .22 semi auto AND a M1 carbine with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds if I remember correctly. I had free access to any ammunition I wanted including the .30 caliber rounds for the carbine.

In my junior high school PE class, the State firearm safety class was required for all boys. The course required each student to demonstrate safe handling of each of the three real shotguns and rifles the three instructors brought INTO THE SCHOOL!

I am not so naive to say times now are the same as my junior high school years of the early 1960’s. As a retired mental health professional I can list a number of changes in our society that have produced not only increases in violent crimes but also the dramatic polarization of political opinions. Sadly, I do not believe there will be any sense of healing or resolving of the incredibly strong emotions demonstrated by those on either the conservative or liberal extremes of the spectrum.

I am a life member of the NRA and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, and a Vietnam veteran. I believe in the balance of power of a three part government. I also believe violence begets violence, hatred, hatred. I don’t believe every adult has a right to purchase a gun nor for any gun owner to sell a gun to anyone with money who wants to buy it.

I am extremely disappointed that the NRA has not come out publicly condemning the riot at the Capitol Building, or at least I haven’t seen or read it. I truly fear that we are heading into a shooting war within our boarders and only true, far sighted leadership can change this horrific course we are on.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Only problem is what anyone believes about guns is completely irrelevant. The constitution makes it so that your opinion about guns cannot legally become a lae
Funny enough I am consistent on my position with firearm ownership and voting for 18-20 year olds: I think both are not competent enough to do either. I say this fully understanding that I would be disenfranchised from voting. It isn't a question about intelligence, but life experience. At this age you have just barely entered the real world, and still hang on to the cliquish mentality of high school and underclass college.

Actually, I think in a lot of circumstances, a ballot in the hand of an 18 year old is more dangerous than a gun

i'd almost agree with you but they are rights and not subject to my opinion.. which is exactly how the constitution should be.. our opinions are irrelevant. it says what it says and that is what we must live by, because if we don't we trample on eachother..
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Someone had the opinion to request the 2nd amendment be added.
....and people had the ideas/arguments to add the other amendments.

An amendment was added to repeal a previous amendment.
Lots of amending going on.

Sooooo....

The document appears to be living.

Opinions are relevant.
Nope, doing away with gun rights or any other part of the bill or rights justifies THE INDIVIDUAL'S choice not to give his concent to be governed and to protect himself and his property by any means he or she wishes..
Such a person has the moral and legal high ground and the government becomes the enemy of the people and must be defeated by patriots.

That's the constitution's view on the bill of rights and the primary reason for the 2nd ammendment.

King County bans guns in the state of Washington Gun owners of Kittitas and Klickitat counties are well within their rights to take over The capital, declare Washington State government null and void and to set up a new government.

That is how you have a living Condition. Not by whittling away at it to make you feel good.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Active Member
King County bans guns in the state of Washington Gun owners of Kittitas and Klickitat counties are well within their rights to take over The capital, declare Washington State government null and void and to set up a new government.
I may be wrong, but I think the state government is in Olympia, which is Thurston County. Furthermore, I am under the impression that county governments only have jurisdiction over their counties and even then are subject to state and/or federal authority.

Lastly, where is it written that insurrection is a right? I’m fairly sure I recall the Constitution of the United States, which you agree is the highest law in our country and that from which everything else derives, being against insurrection.

I’m very curious to know what convinced you of your claims and, if I’m wrong in any of my above statements, I’d love to be corrected. No sarcasm, I really am curious and willing to learn.
 
Last edited:

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Nope, doing away with gun rights or any other part of the bill or rights justifies THE INDIVIDUAL'S choice not to give his concent to be governed and to protect himself and his property by any means he or she wishes..
Such a person has the moral and legal high ground and the government becomes the enemy of the people and must be defeated by patriots.

That's the constitution's view on the bill of rights and the primary reason for the 2nd ammendment.

King County bans guns in the state of Washington Gun owners of Kittitas and Klickitat counties are well within their rights to take over The capital, declare Washington State government null and void and to set up a new government.

That is how you have a living Condition. Not by whittling away at it to make you feel good.

Wondering here you are getting the statement that "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights"

Article V of the US Constitution sets forth the means for amending the Constitution, including amending of amendments. There is a single existing exemption "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ie, if the framers of the Constitution desired to exempt the Bill of Rights from amendment, they would have done so.

The Second Amendment is for "the security of a free state" not "free individuals" (there was a whole class of enslaved individuals at the time, if you recollect).

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
A national firearm registration should be a positive thing, i.e., an inventory of who has what firearms, as part of a nationwide effort to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally impaired. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna' happen and can't happen, because as has been mentioned, there are real life examples where governments have used such registrations to seize citizens' firearms. So the concern is not just a hypothetical.

I think what would contribute to a reduction in gun violence is universal nationwide background checks on all firearm transactions, including private sales. And I add that last bit as one who opposed WA's initiative that created and closed the private sale loophole. The background database needs to be national, not state, so that people in Illinois can no longer drive over to Indiana and make straw purchases of firearms with no checks and then take them back into Illinois to sell illegally.

The other thing that would likely contribute to a reduction in gun violence is if mental health professionals were not only allowed, but required, to share information about unstable patients with local LE. But that can't happen due to patient confidentiality laws, and the advocates of those laws would rather seize everbody's firearms than make exceptions to that confidentiality. So essentially choosing patient privacy over public safety is to choose murder and mass shootings in some cases, cuz seizing everyone's firearms to keep them out of the hands of the mentally impaired ain't gonna' happen either.

The upshot is that Americans have chosen gun violence as an acceptable price of less restrictive firearm ownership.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Wondering here you are getting the statement that "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights"

Article V of the US Constitution sets forth the means for amending the Constitution, including amending of amendments. There is a single existing exemption "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ie, if the framers of the Constitution desired to exempt the Bill of Rights from amendment, they would have done so.

The Second Amendment is for "the security of a free state" not "free individuals" (there was a whole class of enslaved individuals at the time, if you recollect).

Cheers


If this were any other right we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What I am describing is the protection of the free state.. start amending the bill of rights and there is no free state... the founding fathers did not trust the government that is why they are individuals rights...
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
I may be wrong, but I think the state government is in Olympia, which is Thurston County. Furthermore, I am under the impression that county governments only have jurisdiction over their counties and even then are subject to state and/or federal authority.

Lastly, where is it written that insurrection is a right? I’m fairly sure I recall the Constitution of the United States, which you agree is the highest law in our country and that from which everything else derives, being against insurrection.

I’m very curious to know what convinced you of your claims and, if I’m wrong in any of my above statements, I’d love to be corrected. No sarcasm, I really am curious and willing to learn.


1. What the constitution and the declaration of independence do is acknowledge God given rights, or Natural rights if you prefer. They do not establish those rights, they merely acknowledge that they exist and that government cannot supercede them without due process of law.

Our rights are the law of the land, the constitution is just the framework in which we try to ensure them.

Our revolutionary War was an insurrection. So our whole country is based on that insurrection., insurrection against tyranny are good.. taking God given rights from people is tyranny.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
A national firearm registration should be a positive thing, i.e., an inventory of who has what firearms, as part of a nationwide effort to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally impaired. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna' happen and can't happen, because as has been mentioned, there are real life examples where governments have used such registrations to seize citizens' firearms. So the concern is not just a hypothetical.

I think what would contribute to a reduction in gun violence is universal nationwide background checks on all firearm transactions, including private sales. And I add that last bit as one who opposed WA's initiative that created and closed the private sale loophole. The background database needs to be national, not state, so that people in Illinois can no longer drive over to Indiana and make straw purchases of firearms with no checks and then take them back into Illinois to sell illegally.

The other thing that would likely contribute to a reduction in gun violence is if mental health professionals were not only allowed, but required, to share information about unstable patients with local LE. But that can't happen due to patient confidentiality laws, and the advocates of those laws would rather seize everbody's firearms than make exceptions to that confidentiality. So essentially choosing patient privacy over public safety is to choose murder and mass shootings in some cases, cuz seizing everyone's firearms to keep them out of the hands of the mentally impaired ain't gonna' happen either.

The upshot is that Americans have chosen gun violence as an acceptable price of less restrictive firearm ownership.


It would certainly be useful to those hunting down gun owners..

I think we should license. Register and tax people who want to talk....

Or maybe people of specific religions? Who'd be in favor of a nation registration of Jewish people?
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
If this were any other right we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What I am describing is the protection of the free state.. start amending the bill of rights and there is no free state... the founding fathers did not trust the government that is why they are individuals rights...

Then why didn't they exclude the Bill of Rights from the amendment process? There were originally 3 exclusions in Article V, the first 2 expired with the sunset clause of 1808.

The first 10 amendments were in fact, amendments that went through the Article V process. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from being amended.

Don't take this for an argument that they should be amended, it is just acknowledging that they can be and that your statement "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights" is not born out by the Constitution itself - so again, where does this statement come from?

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top