Free: Contests & Raffles.
I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it. I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm. Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.
Quote from: npaull on May 22, 2018, 09:17:29 AMI support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it. I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm. Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.Hunters ed doesn’t make you an ethical hunter nor do any laws legislated make people moral. Your also comparing privileges to a rift but from the sounds of it that is what you think of the 2nd amendment.
Quote from: npaull on May 22, 2018, 09:17:29 AMI support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it. I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm. Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.You're extremely naive, at best. You're talking about making a law to keep people from breaking laws when they're already willing to break laws. This will have zero positive result because they don't care what the law is. Which of the proposed laws do you think will make criminals and insane people follow the law now? And as far as the anti-gun crowd is concerned, if you believe they're going to stop with an age limit law, you haven't been paying attention at all. Look around the country. Gun confiscation is now happening in NY, CT, CA, and HI. They're not stopping at age limits or gun registration or magazine capacity. That's not the end game.You mention that you need licenses for hunting and driving. Hunting and driving are privileges. Constitutional rights are not. They're sacrosanct. Should you need to take a course on how to be secure in your person and possessions to be able to take advantage of the 4th Amendment? No. Do you need a course to voice your opinion publicly to take advantage of your rights under the 1st Amendment? No. Should we also restrict the rental of trucks, the sale of gasoline? The tool is not the problem. As far as the schools are concerned, well-meaning liberals helped to create this atmosphere of killing opportunity when the gun free zones law was established in the 90s. Another law being completely ignored by criminals and only observed by those who aren't a threat.By the way, Australia has basically the same murder rate today as it had before they passed their sweeping gun laws. The only thing their gun ban achieved was to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. If you want to save lives, improve security at schools, improve public reporting and reaction by law enforcement, improve education of students AND parents, and improve access to mental healthcare. Disarming me will not make anyone except the criminals more safe.Look, if your guns or your mental state scare you, by all means, give up your firearms. Let me know and I'll help. But don't bugger me and tell me I'm getting a colonoscopy for my own good.
Quote from: npaull on May 22, 2018, 09:17:29 AMI support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it. I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm. Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.The problem is not easy access to firearms.. When I was in high school kids had firearms in rifle racks out in plain view. The problem is worthless idiots having children and not instilling a moral and ethical code into them.
Just read the initiative and its beyond ridiculous in my opinion in a few ways; specifically this section makes me laugh and angry at once;"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, nodealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaserthereof until:(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed arecognized firearm safety training program within the last fiveyears that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:(i) Basic firearms safety rules;(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage andtalking to children about gun safety;(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;(v) Safe handling of firearms; and(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibitedfirearms transfers.The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, ormunicipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, anationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearmstraining, or a firearms training school with instructors certifiedby a nationally recognized organization that customarily offersfirearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of acertification that states under the penalty of perjury the trainingincluded the minimum requirements; and(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of policeor the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser residesthat the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm underRCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by thechief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided insubsection (3)(b) of this section;"Where does the encroachment on the 2nd amendment stop if this is passed? Glad I live in Montana now.
I think everyone is missing the point. The people wanting these laws do not want to solve the problem. They do not care who gets killed and use every killing to further their cause. All these laws have one aim, to encumber legal gun owners to the point that they just stop owning guns. Tighten the noose tighter and tighter until owing a gun just isn't worth the bother. Where one mis-step with a gun law make you a felon. Most will give in. When that happens it will send fragments into every aspect of or lives and the results will be very bad.
Quote from: mburrows on May 22, 2018, 09:28:24 AMJust read the initiative and its beyond ridiculous in my opinion in a few ways; specifically this section makes me laugh and angry at once;"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, nodealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaserthereof until:(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed arecognized firearm safety training program within the last fiveyears that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:(i) Basic firearms safety rules;(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage andtalking to children about gun safety;(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;(v) Safe handling of firearms; and(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibitedfirearms transfers.The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, ormunicipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, anationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearmstraining, or a firearms training school with instructors certifiedby a nationally recognized organization that customarily offersfirearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of acertification that states under the penalty of perjury the trainingincluded the minimum requirements; and(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of policeor the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser residesthat the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm underRCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by thechief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided insubsection (3)(b) of this section;"Where does the encroachment on the 2nd amendment stop if this is passed? Glad I live in Montana now.So the LAST time this got very far, the Dems jumped up and said "We just won't fund the classes, that will shut down transfers and sales. Look for the same thing. Also notice the transfer of responsibility from the thief to the victim in the case of a stolen firearm. YOU too can be a FELON because someone stole your gun... AND notice that the state and its organs neatly absolve THEMSELVES of any liability of any sort in any way.Ptui.
Does any of these required classes exist or would they need to be created?
and yet people still support the seattle seahawks.
Quote from: woodswalker on May 22, 2018, 02:42:00 PMQuote from: mburrows on May 22, 2018, 09:28:24 AMJust read the initiative and its beyond ridiculous in my opinion in a few ways; specifically this section makes me laugh and angry at once;"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, nodealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaserthereof until:(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed arecognized firearm safety training program within the last fiveyears that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:(i) Basic firearms safety rules;(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage andtalking to children about gun safety;(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;(v) Safe handling of firearms; and(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibitedfirearms transfers.The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, ormunicipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, anationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearmstraining, or a firearms training school with instructors certifiedby a nationally recognized organization that customarily offersfirearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of acertification that states under the penalty of perjury the trainingincluded the minimum requirements; and(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of policeor the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser residesthat the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm underRCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by thechief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided insubsection (3)(b) of this section;"Where does the encroachment on the 2nd amendment stop if this is passed? Glad I live in Montana now.So the LAST time this got very far, the Dems jumped up and said "We just won't fund the classes, that will shut down transfers and sales. Look for the same thing. Also notice the transfer of responsibility from the thief to the victim in the case of a stolen firearm. YOU too can be a FELON because someone stole your gun... AND notice that the state and its organs neatly absolve THEMSELVES of any liability of any sort in any way.Ptui.So according to this we would need to attend a class every 5 years to legally possess/purchase “semi automatic assault rifles?” Is their a definition of what will be considered a “semi automatic assault rifles?” Or is this the way they are opening the door to make everyone go to the class to own a firearm?Does any of these required classes exist or would they need to be created?
