Washington gun control advocates admit they had gone too far

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thankfully it was caught and fixed and most of the people pushing the gun control agenda seem to understand this is a Bad Idea^TM.  Still, there are people on that side of the issue that will stop at nothing to get rid of guns or make owning a gun a huge pain in the ass.  We must remain vigilant.

[Franzl]

To be honest, it's a perfectly reasonable proposal that really would encourage safer gun habits.

But we can't have that, it's authoritarian!

[dead0man]

and unconstitutional!

[Franzl]

and unconstitutional!

Don't dispute that, but I'd change the Constitution. The constitutional status says nothing about whether it's a good or bad idea.

[Vosem]

It amazes me anyone could defend this.

[krazen1211]

Yes, the left wants to invade people's homes and confiscate their guns. Who thought otherwise?

[DemPGH]

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. Like someone came up with this in order to look busy. So the cops, under this, would come into your home once a year to, get this, check to see if your assault weapons are stored properly? Once a year? That's not unconstitutional - that's minutia. I mean, so what. You know, to have a little fun with it, let's say some nut somewhere owns a tank, which he parks on a hill. Would the cops come once a year to make sure the brakes on it work? You know, so it doesn't roll down the hill and kill someone? Because guns and tanks are designed to kill and do nothing else.

In truth, people shouldn't have the said weapons to begin with. But if the cops want to "check to see that they are stored properly," REAL big deal.

[Franzl]

It amazes me anyone could defend this.

Assuming there is no absolute right to own a gun, there's nothing particularly radical about it. If you want to go to the trouble of owning a deadly weapon, then you should be required to fulfill certain conditions.

It'd be like "implied consent" to DUI testing if you get pulled over. Same principle.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Finally, somebody posts something on here that isn't rabidly left-wing!!!  Bravo dead0man!

[Sopranos Republican]

Finally, somebody posts something on here that isn't rabidly left-wing!!!  Bravo dead0man!

[dead0man]

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. Like someone came up with this in order to look busy. So the cops, under this, would come into your home once a year to, get this, check to see if your assault weapons are stored properly? Once a year? That's not unconstitutional - that's minutia. I mean, so what. You know, to have a little fun with it, let's say some nut somewhere owns a tank, which he parks on a hill. Would the cops come once a year to make sure the brakes on it work? You know, so it doesn't roll down the hill and kill someone? Because guns and tanks are designed to kill and do nothing else.

In truth, people shouldn't have the said weapons to begin with. But if the cops want to "check to see that they are stored properly," REAL big deal.

Do I need to show, again, how few people are killed by any kind of rifle?  Of the 636 people murdered in your state in 2011, 8 (EIGHT!) were murdered with a rifle of any kind.  27 people were beat to death without the use of a blunt object.  66 were beaten to death with an object.  Another 73 were stabbed.  cite

...and you want to sh**t on the 4th Amendment over "assault weapons".  It makes no sense to me.

[Sbane]

and unconstitutional!

Don't dispute that, but I'd change the Constitution. The constitutional status says nothing about whether it's a good or bad idea.

You are fine with a warrant less search of your home without any notice? That's a police state I would not like to live in.

[DC Al Fine]

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. Like someone came up with this in order to look busy. So the cops, under this, would come into your home once a year to, get this, check to see if your assault weapons are stored properly? Once a year? That's not unconstitutional - that's minutia. I mean, so what. You know, to have a little fun with it, let's say some nut somewhere owns a tank, which he parks on a hill. Would the cops come once a year to make sure the brakes on it work? You know, so it doesn't roll down the hill and kill someone? Because guns and tanks are designed to kill and do nothing else.

In truth, people shouldn't have the said weapons to begin with. But if the cops want to "check to see that they are stored properly," REAL big deal.

Do I need to show, again, how few people are killed by any kind of rifle?  Of the 636 people murdered in your state in 2011, 8 (EIGHT!) were murdered with a rifle of any kind.  27 people were beat to death without the use of a blunt object.  66 were beaten to death with an object.  Another 73 were stabbed.  cite

...and you want to sh**t on the 4th Amendment over "assault weapons".  It makes no sense to me.

Better question: Why don't we take a dump on the 4th amendment to search for improperly stored kitchen knives? After all they were responsible for 9x more murders than rifles.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It amazes me anyone could defend this.

[Franzl]

and unconstitutional!

Don't dispute that, but I'd change the Constitution. The constitutional status says nothing about whether it's a good or bad idea.

You are fine with a warrant less search of your home without any notice? That's a police state I would not like to live in.

Only for that purpose and only to enforce gun safety regulations. If that's a problem...you don't need to own a gun.

Just as you don't need to operate a motor vehicle on public roads if you object to being tested for blood alcohol content. Why is that different?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

It amazes me anyone could defend this.

Also

Finally, somebody posts something on here that isn't rabidly left-wing!!!  Bravo dead0man!

hahahaha

[Sbane]

and unconstitutional!

Don't dispute that, but I'd change the Constitution. The constitutional status says nothing about whether it's a good or bad idea.

You are fine with a warrant less search of your home without any notice? That's a police state I would not like to live in.

Only for that purpose and only to enforce gun safety regulations. If that's a problem...you don't need to own a gun.

Just as you don't need to operate a motor vehicle on public roads if you object to being tested for blood alcohol content. Why is that different?

Once the police are in your house, they can arrest your for anything that is in plain sight.

[Torie]

Searching a home without probable cause is a profoundly bad idea. If you want to get rid of guns, change the Constitution and ban them. But don't trash a bunch of other Constitutional rights in the process. Thanks.

[DC Al Fine]

Searching a home without probable cause is a profoundly bad idea. If you want to get rid of guns, change the Constitution and ban them. But don't trash a bunch of other Constitutional rights in the process. Thanks.

[Obamanation]

There isn't really anything objectionable about this.

[fezzyfestoon]

So is this supposed to be an argument against ALL forms of gun control or what?

[King]

I'd really be more inclined to support liberal policies if they focused on poverty and education first and this... twentieth or so.

If we had the highest educated population and lowest poverty rate possible and guns were still a problem, then it would be the right time to move into a gun control discussion.  This is just a wedge issue until then.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'd really be more inclined to support liberal policies if they focused on poverty and education first and this... twentieth or so.

If we had the highest educated population and lowest poverty rate possible and guns were still a problem, then it would be the right time to move into a gun control discussion.  This is just a wedge issue until then.

True. It's an easy, shallow solution to a complex societal problem.

[King]

I'd really be more inclined to support liberal policies if they focused on poverty and education first and this... twentieth or so.

If we had the highest educated population and lowest poverty rate possible and guns were still a problem, then it would be the right time to move into a gun control discussion.  This is just a wedge issue until then.

True. It's an easy, shallow solution to a complex societal problem.

It's also driving too many rural whites into extreme economic conservatism.  They sign up for God and guns, then assume everything the part that advocates God and guns must be doing is correct.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'd really be more inclined to support liberal policies if they focused on poverty and education first and this... twentieth or so.

If we had the highest educated population and lowest poverty rate possible and guns were still a problem, then it would be the right time to move into a gun control discussion.  This is just a wedge issue until then.

True. It's an easy, shallow solution to a complex societal problem.

It's also driving too many rural whites into extreme economic conservatism.  They sign up for God and guns, then assume everything the part that advocates God and guns must be doing is correct.

Yeah, I agree and I think it's being exacerbated by a (likely deliberate) disconnect in the rhetoric that doesn't address the fact that gun ownership in an urban setting is far different from owning a gun in a rural setting. But people only care what a law does to them directly, I suppose.