http://politistick.com/washington-states-1491-gun-control-measure-abominable/ This is how it starts I think. I saw this initiative coming up and hadn't given it a hard look untill I got an email from my local sportsman club. Now having looked it over and having it come to mind in the situations describe it's is a scary law clearly intended to get the people to disarm the people.
No I am not a threat to Public Safety. However under the proposed law anyone would be able to petition the court for an emergency order. The courts in this state are always going to do what they call err on the side of safety. My neighbor could petition the court for an order simply because I'm listening to Metallica's Fade to Black and determined that I am suicidal. The courts would issue the order and I would find myself with the police at my door being forced to surrender my firearms. At which point the court would not give my guns back until I underwent a full psychological evaluation by a court-appointed psychologist with my only chance being that he is not an anti-gun person. That's how they can come take your guns.
Source citation needed for the above bolded claim if you argue it as fact. If the above is your opinion that is fine, but to sway me will take more than opinion. Speculation.
the problem is-if you are WRONG, we gun owners lose our rights. If we are wrong no one suffers anything
People been telling me that the government is coming to get our guns for decades now and yet we can still have guns. Some people here on the forums have been convinced that Obama is coming for their guns yet we still have our guns. I base my views upon evidence as opposed to paranoia fueled speculation. A bold claim, what evidence to you have beyond opinion to back it up?
honest people owning guns cause very little harm and stop lots of crime. the only reason why Obama couldn't pass gun bans is that 1) Senate Majority leader Reid didn't want to lose his senate seat and his majority so he snuffed any gun ban laws that his anti gun colleagues tried to pass 2) The Heller decision cast a long shadow over laws that were of a bannerrhoid nature 3) once the GOP got control of the senate, such proposed laws were toast but the fact remains -Obama wants gun bans, Hillary wants gun bans and many of Hillary's fan club members hate gun owners 3)
Can you give me a direct quote of Obama saying he wants to take all our guns away? If not then what is the fear of a gun grab based upon?
he said the assault weapon (no such thing-its a made up term by bannerrhoid movement leaders designed to cause low wattage members of the public to think certain firearms are intended to be used for "criminal assault) ban should be reinstated. he praised the Australian and English gun confiscations
Which does nothing to prove that he wants to take away all our guns. But I do see the above as a valid reason to have concern that he wants more limits placed upon firearms. What if any limits should there be on firearm ownership? Should the mentally disturbed be allowed to own or be in the possession of firearms?
no politician who actually wants to win will come out and say they want to ban RIGHT NOW all guns but if you think its acceptable to ban rifles that are used in less murders than hands and hammers, knives and clubs, then you must also want to ban all handguns. and when those bans don't stop crime you will want to ban shotguns and pretty soon all guns are banned if someone has been adjudicated mentally incompetent its already illegal for them to possess firearms. It really would be nice if gun restrictionists actually knew the laws before they start discussing more gun laws. the only real gun laws we need are ones that are already in place
Exactly. Murder is already illegal. If the penalties of murder don't deter someone, then a couple of more silly laws are not going to either. It's pretty clear to me that many democrat politicians are on the road of incremental steps towards banning. People may deny this, yet they keep coming up with more and more silly laws every time a lunatic commits a mass shooting to impose upon the INNOCENT people who have never killed anyone. The whole situation is ridiculous, IMO.
Which is not proof that he wants to take away all our guns. Assumptions are without limits thus my preference for facts as facts are irrefutable and make assumption unnecessary. I am of the belief that an armed society is a polite society... figuratively speaking. So you and I are more allied than you may think. But as I value objectivity over bias I need more than speculation as to what a politician may or may not do in terms of gun control. Which is fine for those who suffer from a chronic mental illness, but what of those who have temporary psychological issues... are they to keep their firearm if they express suicidal or homicidal idealizations or are deemed as a temporary threat to self or others by a psychologist? Do you argue that you are knowledgeable of all gun laws in all states and territories? If not then perhaps you may want to reconsider the above stance. Which has left us with a much higher rate of firearm related homocides when compared with most of our western counterparts. Can we not do better?
since the clinton administration, 30 million or more guns have been bought by American citizens A huge increase in the number of "assault style" rifles and 15-18 round semi auto handguns and guess what, crime is going DOWN. I suspect you can look around the world and have a hard time finding someone who 1) is an expert on firearms laws at the federal level 2) at several states 3) was a world class shooter 4) is still nationally competitive in my age (over 50) group in several shooting sports including Olympic trap, olympic skeet, and speed shooting 5) spent over two decades as a federal prosecutor. I was the go to guy on firearms issues
well lets use our brains if the THOUGHT OF THE DEATH PENALTY or 99+ years in prison don't deter someone how is a 2-5 year charge of having a gun going to stop said criminal? - - - Updated - - - its funny chris, the Gun banners constantly demand "common sense gun control" but where we fail to understand is we think they mean common sense refers to laws that actually will impact criminals. WE are wrong. When members of the ARC (anti rights coalition-the group seeking to restrict gun ownership) talk about COMMON SENSE it means laws that will clearly harass honest citizens while not impacting a MAJOR constituency of the Democrat party-criminals and the parts of society that supply us with most of our violent street criminals
I think most people are aware of the fact that gun control laws are only affecting the people who actually obey laws? - - - Updated - - - Lol! I'll bet most murderers have guns that they are not even supposed to have, according to our "gun control laws." What a joke!
You are speaking of crime in general while I am talking about firearm related homicides. If you have data that shows a downward trend of firearm related murders I would be interested in seeing it. Thus the answer is no you are not knowledgeable of all gun laws in all states and territories.
Dodge noted. I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot or will not defend your previous claim.
It's no dodge, it's just plain old common sense. Too many people don't have it. - - - Updated - - - I'm sure he's more knowledgeable than you on the topic though, right?
Interesting, so do you perceive those who have a view you disagree with as not useing their brains? If so how convenient says I. A good question, but my inability to answer the question does not mean that there can never be a positive benefit to a new gun law. The failure of old laws is not proof that new laws will suffer the same fate. Do you perceive me as a gun banner? By the way what is common sense if other than a view that you agree with? I see "common sense" arguments in debate as a red herring and lazy debate.
