Initiatives 594 and 591

[luvmystang67]

Please write the NRA and ask for their support in defeating this bill.  It is probably our only chance.

I just did, I hope they choose to support.

First offense of loaning a gun to your kid to hunt alone at age 16... is a misdemeanor, second offense is a Class C Felony where you don't get to vote or own firearms anymore.  But hey, why worry about it?

[Bob33]

If polls are even reasonably credible, there is virtually no chance I-594 will fail.

Polls also suggest that I-591 has a good chance of passing.

The best reasonable hope that gun rights individuals have is to support I-591 with money, time, and spreading the word.

If both intitiatives pass, the law will need to be decided in court, not by an initiative approved by ignorant voters.

[snowpack]

It will make people LESS safe.  If they can't get a gun for protection from buying or from not knowing someone for a 'self defense loan', then they can't defend themselves.  And 911 has had quite a few cases of being down in recent time, and if someone does get through a cop is only 10-15 minutes away in a good case.  Firearms are used A LOT more to prevent crime than to commit it.

[pianoman9701]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"

http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/

[pianoman9701]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either.  They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.

[pianoman9701]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either.  They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.

And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized people."

The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.

The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.

[bradslam]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"

http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/

That is one person who was referencing a single incident.  That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer.  Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.

[pianoman9701]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"

http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/

That is one person who was referencing a single incident.  That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer.  Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.

So, you tell us how anyone will be made safer by universal background checks. Tells us how the background checks will dissuade someone intent on committing murder not to murder. And tell us that, because of how the law is written and that it could take 6 months or more to procure a firearm, it's not possible that some people will actually be put in more danger by having to wait an unreasonable amount of time to get a firearm to protect themselves and their family. Please. I'm all ears.

[bradslam]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either.  They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.

No one said anything about grabbing our ankles.   A problem I see with the stance many gun rights advocates take is that their whole outlook is based on what the extremists on the other side want.  On any issue, there is an extreme viewpoint on each side and the vast majority of voters fall somewhere in the middle.  It is the battle over the middle that is important.  I happen to think that due to our lack of pro-activeness and cooperation, we are losing that battle and it will cost us more in the end.   

[bradslam]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either.  They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.

And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized people."

The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.

The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.

Did I say anything about changing the Constitution?  Obviously, there are constraints put on the rights contained within the Constitution that are not mentioned and are perfectly reasonable.  For instance, a felon or someone who is deemed mentally ill cannot possess a firearm. 

[pianoman9701]

This is from a senator who proposed and passed the federal gun control bill in 1996. Apparently, a waiting period and a moritorium on "assault weapons" isn't all she aims for.

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

There is no half way. For the people like Feinkenstein, of which there are hordes, nothing but complete prohibition of firearms is acceptable.

[pianoman9701]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either.  They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.

And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized people."

The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.

The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.

Did I say anything about changing the Constitution?  Obviously, there are constraints put on the rights contained within the Constitution that are not mentioned and are perfectly reasonable.  For instance, a felon or someone who is deemed mentally ill cannot possess a firearm.

Some people feel that felons who have served their time and paid their penalties should have their rights restored. I'm not in complete disagreement with that.

[bradslam]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"

http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/

That is one person who was referencing a single incident.  That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer.  Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.

So, you tell us how anyone will be made safer by universal background checks. Tells us how the background checks will dissuade someone intent on committing murder not to murder. And tell us that, because of how the law is written and that it could take 6 months or more to procure a firearm, it's not possible that some people will actually be put in more danger by having to wait an unreasonable amount of time to get a firearm to protect themselves and their family. Please. I'm all ears.

You just don't get it.  I never said that I was in favor of anything specific contained in I-594.  My whole argument has been trying to prevent bad laws from taking effect by participating in coming up with solutions that minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.  As I said on an earlier post, part of that has to do with fixing the broken mental health system and how those people are not reported in the system.  How many times do we have to find out that the people responsible for these shootings were sending out massive red flags, but none of that is reported to the proper authority that could possibly prevent the incidents from taking place?

[bradslam]

This is from a senator who proposed and passed the federal gun control bill in 1996. Apparently, a waiting period and a moritorium on "assault weapons" isn't all she aims for.

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

There is no half way. For the people like Feinkenstein, of which there are hordes, nothing but complete prohibition of firearms is acceptable.

I understand that and I would place Feinstein in the extreme category, not the middle I was talking about.

[baldopepper]

Pianoman I agree that there are a lot of hard core "no gun" advocates out there, but I believe there are a lot more moderates who would like to come up with some solution short of total bans that would keep guns out of the hands of hard core criminals.  I think all of us would, but for the life of me, I honestly don't know of any law that would do that.  Somehow we have to come up with legislation that would appeal to that large segment of moderates who don't want a total ban, but might go that way if given no alternative.  Personally I kind of go with legislation that requires very long term sentences for anyone committing a crime with a gun. The only way I see to keep guns out of the hands of some is to keep them in prison.  In the mean time, the real test is how do we keep from being backed into an all or nothing battle over gun control.  That's kind of what's happened with I 594 and I think we all are pretty sure what the results of that are going to be.  Geeze, I'm beginning to hear more comments about amending the 2nd amendment  and as far fetched as that might seem, nothing surprises me anymore.  We're just preaching to the choir on this forum, it's those moderates out there who are actually willing to listen that we need to get to and work with.