Politics Paul Allen gives $500K to Washington gun initiative

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Minstrel said:
I'm not sure that's a crucial point, though. They were legally acquired by their parents or wherever they got them (I assume). The point is that legally acquired firearms being so prevalent make these things more likely. I'm not, here, advocating that their parents shouldn't have been able to buy the guns, but I don't really buy the argument that the only guns that murder people are unregistered, black market pieces so any and all regulations are doomed to fail in reducing gun violence (which may or may not be what you are arguing, but is commonly argued).



What do you feel the downsides of background checks are? They may not prevent most of the shootings, but the thing is, more sweeping regulations are currently impossible due to the hold that the NRA has on a lot of congresspeople. This is a problem you can only chip away at. I agree with you, actually, that background checks, themselves, aren't going to change things much. But a "fix it all or do nothing" approach always means nothing (which is fine, of course, for the people who want nothing done, but obviously not fine for people who want to make a change). You start with low impact and achievable things and move on from there. That's how it always (has to) work, by and large.
Click to expand...

I guess my point is that it's a waste of time. That link I gave to the FBI showed that there were almost as many murders from knives/other objects as there were from guns in Oregon in 2012. People are going to kill people. I don't think that will be ending anytime soon. I would rather have harsher punishments for murderers, rather than hopefully somehow prevent them from doing it. I would rather give them pause because they're worried about what might happen if they're caught.

My biggest issue is that the money and energy could be better used elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree that murders will always happen (until humans fundamentally change--perhaps via replacing their brains with advanced computers?). The problem is not that guns cause murders--they don't...human nature, and human mental disorders, cause murders. Guns simply act as a force multiplier. It's much, much harder to kill a bunch of people with a knife...it's messier, nastier and people can much more easily fight back or overwhelm you as a group. Taken to a (purposeful) extreme, if RPGs or nuclear weapons were widely available, humanity's murderous nature would be even more ruinous to society. I do think that makes guns (and other tools of mass-killing, as opposed to weapons of one-on-one killing like a knife or hammer) a unique problem that needs to be addressed. At the very least, background checks might filter out some people with diagnosed problems (though not people with undiagnosed problems, of course).
 
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, have donated $1 million to a Washington state campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales, bringing the total amount the campaign has brought in up to nearly $6 million.
 
Another $6 million dollars that will never be spent on Mental Healthcare.

No better way to assure mass killings continue.
 
MARIS61 said:
No surprise that all the slave owners lead the gun confiscation march.
Click to expand...

Yep. And try and tell black people that Democrats were responsible for Slavery, and they'll look at you with stupid eyes. "But....but Lincoln was a Democrat!" Sigh.

Treaty_of_Batum said:
Hope 594 passes and then Oregon tires to copy it.
Click to expand...

Fail.

magnifier661 said:
Really? So let's say you are at the range and you let your friend borrow your gun so he can shoot with you. Now you must go to the nearest dealer to do a quick background check or you have a felony?

Seems a little too much no?
Click to expand...

Win. And that's exactly what this law means: ALL loans to friends and family MUST be given a background check.

barfo said:
Doesn't sound like an accurate portrayal of the proposal to me. As far as I can see it is talking about ownership transfer?

barfo
Click to expand...

And more fail. Go read the law before you vote for it. Something which the idiot liberals in Washington either did not do, or didn't care to do. Don't be an idiot liberal (not calling you one, just telling you NOT to be one).

I own six guns; loaned them out to friends and family before, and I've yet to have a problem going into my 11th year as a gun owner. This law will ONLY punish the law-abiding, and will do NOTHING to curb "gun violence". The only reason this passed was because Billionaires shoved it discreetly under the noses of the ignorant in Washington. Those who weren't ignorant, like me, actually read the law and voted against it. Then I donated to the NRA. But apparently, it wasn't enough.

Never mind that dealers, who were already in the business of screwing over gun owners, will get yet another reason to screw over gun owners by charging them ridiculous prices for transfers and background checks. Fucking assholes.

Wish idiot billionaires would stay the fuck out of politics.
 
magnifier661 said:
I'm fine with extended background checks. Can we have upgraded checks so "law abiding citizens" have ability to have concealed weapons and extended ammo mags too?

If a citizen will allow you to go deep into their background, let's give those that are awesome like me a chance to have good weapons for the criminals that buy guns without checks. Fully automatic weapons!
Click to expand...

If you're fine with laws weakening The Second Amendment then I'm sure you're okay with laws weakening The First Amendment?
 
MARIS61 said:
If you're fine with laws weakening The Second Amendment then I'm sure you're okay with laws weakening The First Amendment?
Click to expand...

Because, after all, the 1st and 2nd amendments are exactly the same. Just like all the other amendments. Why they gave them different numbers is not clear.

barfo
 
Jade Falcon said:
Go read the law before you vote for it.
Click to expand...

Don't live in WA, so can't vote for or against it.

But I think the fact that earlier in this thread I quoted from the law (well, proposed law) suggests that maybe I read more of it than you assume.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Because, after all, the 1st and 2nd amendments are exactly the same. Just like all the other amendments. Why they gave them different numbers is not clear.

barfo
Click to expand...
If one can be made weak by fiat, so can the others.

But we're already seeing the lefties in power abusing their authority and losing elections.

I'm sure they'd love to do away with those, too.
 
Denny Crane said:
If one can be made weak by fiat, so can the others.
Click to expand...

Fiat? We are talking here about a vote of the people, not some sort of executive action.

barfo
 
Amending the constitution requires a vote. Anything less is by fiat.

I assure you that all the things righties would get rid of by fiat wouldn't make you happy.

So gore nobody's ox.
 
I'm just used to background checks in California, so it's something I'm used to
 
I wouldn't want laws weakening privacy, abortion rights, right to trial, etc., either.
 
barfo said:
Because, after all, the 1st and 2nd amendments are exactly the same. Just like all the other amendments. Why they gave them different numbers is not clear.

barfo
Click to expand...

Sarcasm aside, yes, all protections of individual freedoms are pretty much the same. Like engine parts, they are pretty much useless by themselves without the complete assembled set. Suppose the government banned carburetors? You could buy all the cars you wanted but...

This is pretty much why The Second Amendment came Second, and not later.

It just so happens I was there when The Bill of Rights was first conceived. The conversation went something like this...

"Let's make a bill of rights so Britain's tyranny will never be repeated."

#1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Okay, wait a sec, our own government is the only entity that could interfere with these rights and most other rights we may include in this list, so what can we do to ensure #1 is not abused by force? How about this?"

#2 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"Cool idea. That way the government will never be our Master again, but will be even stronger as our servant."

A lot of history-ignorant buffoons like to pretend that the English language had different meanings "back then" but below is the most pertinent and famous commentary from "back then" and for those who can read makes it absolutely clear that #2 was meant to be an absolute individual right never to be altered, added to, subtracted from, or otherwise changed in any way whatsoever no matter how reasonable the changed might sound to some.


Tench Coxe

In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[121]


As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[122][123]


Tucker/Blackstone

The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[124] Tucker wrote:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

William Rawle
Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game," portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom," yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.]"[127] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Lysander Spooner
Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[134] Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[135] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.
 
Restrictive California gun regulations are the #1 instigator for my clients uprooting their families, careers and lives to move to Oregon.

Seriously, about 1/3 of my Real Estate income is derived from California gun owners moving here. Most others from out of state mention general invasive regulations, or coddling of illegals to destroy wages, as their reason to move here.
 
MARIS61 said:
Restrictive California gun regulations are the #1 instigator for my clients uprooting their families, careers and lives to move to Oregon.

Seriously, about 1/3 of my Real Estate income is derived from California gun owners moving here. Most others from out of state mention general invasive regulations, or coddling of illegals to destroy wages, as their reason to move here.
Click to expand...

Give us your tiresome, your poor neighbors,
your befuddled asses yearning to shoot guns,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

(sorry, couldn't improve upon that last line).

barfo
 
MARIS61 said:
absolutely clear that #2 was meant to be an absolute individual right never to be altered, added to, subtracted from, or otherwise changed in any way whatsoever no matter how reasonable the changed might sound to some.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right. However, I don't find that very convincing. After all, when they passed the 18th amendment, they intended that to be permanent too.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
Amending the constitution requires a vote. Anything less is by fiat.

I assure you that all the things righties would get rid of by fiat wouldn't make you happy.

So gore nobody's ox.
Click to expand...

A vote of the people is a vote of the people. I certainly don't agree with everything the people vote for, by any means, but I support their right to decide by voting.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I'm sure you are right. However, I don't find that very convincing. After all, when they passed the 18th amendment, they intended that to be permanent too.

barfo
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to that being the case. There was no language inserted saying the Amendment was anything more than a temporary law to deal with crime and poverty. It failed at it's purpose, was an obvious use of The Bill of Rights as it was not a right at all but a restriction, and it was properly neutralized.

It belonged in The Bill of Restrictions, which has tens of millions of Amendments at last count.
 
barfo said:
I'm sure you are right. However, I don't find that very convincing. After all, when they passed the 18th amendment, they intended that to be permanent too.

barfo
Click to expand...

But it was by a vote!

And it was a Progressive agenda item.
 
barfo said:
A vote of the people is a vote of the people. I certainly don't agree with everything the people vote for, by any means, but I support their right to decide by voting.

barfo
Click to expand...

So if they vote to bring back slavery you'd be OK with it because it's by a vote?

I don't think "Democracy" is the ideal. The power belongs in the people and government NOT passing laws and NOT restricting what the People want to do is what works.
 
Denny Crane said:
So if they vote to bring back slavery you'd be OK with it because it's by a vote?

I don't think "Democracy" is the ideal. The power belongs in the people and government NOT passing laws and NOT restricting what the People want to do is what works.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with it. Maybe I'd leave the country. But I'd support the right of the people to vote for it.

I'm confused by your statement that 'NOT restricting what the People want to do is what works'. Yet if what the People want to do is bring back slavery, you are in favor of restricting them from doing what they want?

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
But it was by a vote!

And it was a Progressive agenda item.
Click to expand...

And it was a legitimate vote. As was the vote to repeal it later.

People can change their minds about things. It's ok.

barfo
 
Sorry barfo, but that scenario, tyranny of the majority, is why the people don't vote on most laws. When they do vote, as in a ballot initiative, those are often overturned by the courts for being, you know, unconstitutional.

The plain English you didn't understand is, in other words,pursuit of happiness. As long as there's no victim of physical crime, govt. should be no part of it.
 
barfo said:
And it was a legitimate vote. As was the vote to repeal it later.

People can change their minds about things. It's ok.

barfo
Click to expand...

More like people give Progressive ideas a try and realize what a horrible mistake they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top