Gun rally: 'It's a fundamental right of every American'
»Play Video
KIRKLAND, Wash. - Gun advocates rallied across Washington state Saturday to protect their right to bear arms after President Obama's executive order to toughen gun laws.
In Kirkland, nearly 100 people gathered for a rally there - all to have their voices heard and protect gun owners.
The gun advocates are protesting President Obama's executive actions. Last month, he signed into law 23 executive actions intended to reduce gun violence.
The order came in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut where 20 children and six adults were killed.
"I think it's a fundamental right of every American to be able to defend themselves," said Peter Haigh, a gun rights advocate who attended the Kirkland rally.
Haigh started carrying after someone broke into his home about two years ago. It happened while he and his wife were sleeping.
"It was terrible," he says. "It takes everything away from you including your trust of mankind."
Across the street one gun control supporter, Stuart Dahlquist, was armed with just a sign.
"I'm tired of guns I'm tired of them being everywhere," he said. "I'm not against the idea of owning a gun. I'm against the idea of assault weapons - of people owning a gun and not having them registered."
But the gun rights advocates at the rally say they fear tighter restrictions would trickle down to law enforcement.
"We don't want to be like another nation and restrict our local law enforcement from having the firearms they need to protect us when we don't have a firearm or they respond to a scene," said Jacob Kukuk.
Despite their differences, both sides agree there needs to be discussion on gun laws.
"Nobody said this would be easy, but it's totally worth it, and it's going to take a long time to deal with everybody's opinions, and we've got to start somewhere," said Dahlquist.
In Kirkland, nearly 100 people gathered for a rally there - all to have their voices heard and protect gun owners.
The gun advocates are protesting President Obama's executive actions. Last month, he signed into law 23 executive actions intended to reduce gun violence.
The order came in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut where 20 children and six adults were killed.
"I think it's a fundamental right of every American to be able to defend themselves," said Peter Haigh, a gun rights advocate who attended the Kirkland rally.
Haigh started carrying after someone broke into his home about two years ago. It happened while he and his wife were sleeping.
"It was terrible," he says. "It takes everything away from you including your trust of mankind."
Across the street one gun control supporter, Stuart Dahlquist, was armed with just a sign.
"I'm tired of guns I'm tired of them being everywhere," he said. "I'm not against the idea of owning a gun. I'm against the idea of assault weapons - of people owning a gun and not having them registered."
But the gun rights advocates at the rally say they fear tighter restrictions would trickle down to law enforcement.
"We don't want to be like another nation and restrict our local law enforcement from having the firearms they need to protect us when we don't have a firearm or they respond to a scene," said Jacob Kukuk.
Despite their differences, both sides agree there needs to be discussion on gun laws.
"Nobody said this would be easy, but it's totally worth it, and it's going to take a long time to deal with everybody's opinions, and we've got to start somewhere," said Dahlquist.
I carry mine as a defense while bow hunting in case a cougar gets a little to curious for my comfort...Other then that it sits in my safe just waiting for someone to threaten my family, which will hopefully never happen. I'm not a fan of the fanatics claiming all our gun rights will be taken away, I have read a large majority of the proposals and do not see this happening... However I do believe that if some is illegal caught with a gun and has a criminal background or mental disorder meaning institutionalized then they should automatically receive maximum penalty....Let the rest of us carry on with our daily business Â
@Northriver Part of the problem is that things can be taken away a little at time until there is nothing left. Look at NY, they have been a perfect example of this. One day they institute a ban on any magazines over 10 rounds, now they have moved that to 7. What next? When there is another shooting are they going to drop down to 3 rounds? Maybe they will say a single shot is all we get.Â
@Scott Some of them actually think that citizens should only be allowed to use Revolutionary War type flintlock muskets and pistols. I kid you not, I have had arguments with anti-gun liberals who claim the 2nd amendment was written with only those specific types of guns in mind (obviously cause that's all they had back then), and the founding fathers never intended for us to own anything more advanced than that.
I never thought about it that way guys..Thanks for the info
Here's a solution: We enact a law that requires all citizens to have a psychological evaluation every year as part of an annual physical. If you are suspect on any of the psych answers, all your rights are suspended until you are proven sane. Just think how safe it would be with the entire nation locked up. Oh yeah, I was just kidding . . . it would work as well as most of the anti-gun legislation pending. Sadly, what will likely happen if legislation is passed; is an increase in criminal activity with firearms. Every bit of legislation infringing on "Our Right" in every State & Federally, needs to be challenged and re-challenged (if need be), before it is too late.Â
Who do you trust with your life? I can think of three answers many might choose. Honestly, only one of them has the life saving possibility of balancing the scale at that given moment in time.
I am a little on edge on this, but maybe we should rethink the idea of keeping guns out of criminals' hands - the intentions are good - but it seems like an impossible mission. Even if closing the private sale and gun show loop holes and creating a registry were somewhat successful, it would most likely open a new line of criminal business with higher profits - just like what the prohibition did, or what the war on drugs does. It also creates a false sense of security for those opposed to guns who falsely believe to be protected by the law and police. People who are too dangerous to possess guns should be locked up.
@Komo Dragon --- keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys becomes difficult to impossible with the well intentioned meddling of the more extreme of the pro gun side.
@FormerMarineSgt @Komo Dragon even if you had the rules in place and the loop holes closed, it still wouldn't work, that's my whole point - and I have no agenda, I can live with gun control or without - just don't think it'll work. That's all.
@FormerMarineSgt @Komo Dragon
Yes we have laws against drunk driving and murder. You notice there laws are against actions being committed not against owning an inanimate object that might be used to commit these actions. We havenât tried to ban automobiles because a small percentage of people use them to drive drunk. More murders are committed with hands and feet than rifles so should we regulate hands and feet? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls Or do we apply our energies to the real issue, violence.
@FormerMarineSgt @Komo Dragon same here, including permit ... just don't expect much from these laws, in terms of lower number of thugs owning them. And expect more crime to be committed in acquiring weapons ...
@Komo Dragon - When a single city or state puts tough gun laws into place, is it any wonder that criminals just go 'next door' to get guns?  When the NRA and it's minions in Congress can get laws enacted that prevent common sense actions, is it any wonder that gun violence isn't resolved? -- They prevent the ATF from even ASKING gun shops for inventory discrepancies for lost weapons, etc. AND they prevent the CDC and the NIH from doing gun violence studies 'because they would appear to support gun control'.
We have laws against drunk driving and murder - We still have both kinds or crime, so should not have those laws? That's the logic you and others are using.
I'm NOT anti-gun in any way. I own a few, and I have a concealed carry permit. I'm not arguing for or against gun control.
Obama was voted into office and took an oath to protect the Constitution. Â
Now he is picking away at it, slowly destroying what this country was built on, the constitution.
In my eyes, he is no longer following his oath to this great nation and should be removed from office.
@Landshark --- if that's the case with guns, why does the majority of NRA members support his positions on gun control?
I think you'll find that the only people who think like you do on this are the more extreme right - and would hate whatever Obama does -even if he suddenly took the right wing position on everything.
FormerMarineSgt I'd have to say I disagree with that. I know many people who voted for Obama the first time, they did not vote for him the 2nd time because he was full of nothing but rhetoric. I also doubt that the majority of NRA members support most of the proposals, nor does it really matter what they think. There are a lot of gun owners that are not NRA members. I don't agree with everything they say, and I don't agree with what you are saying and I am a member.
@FormerMarineSgt The problem is not the right hating everything Obama does, it's the left supporting everything Obama does without question.
What defines an assault weapon? Cosmetics, function, caliber? To those who don't know much about firearms, they would go with what congress and other politicians are saying, 'cosmetic features'.Â
IF, and I do mean if, you actually are a former Marine Sgt, if I would hand you a Ruger 10/22 dressed up with a collapsable stock, pistol grip, and verticle foregrip, would you take it into battle? It has a detachable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and it meets the description of an assault weapon by most every description that congress has used...
Would you? (That is if other weapons were available for that use, such as the current M4)Â
Not to mention, the constitution states 'Shall not be infringed'.. What does infringed mean? What is the difference between and infringement, and a restriction, when people are banned from owning arms that have certain charactaristics?
I am really interested in your answers...
@Landshark Thank God most people don't think like you.
@thebigteacher Too bad they don't think like Landshark...Obama would have never gotten back into office, and our government would have been focusing on fixing the economy and balancing the budget right now. Instead, going after guns is their top priority.
hey Peter - if your gonna demonstrate how about you at-least display an American made AR instead of that commie AK !!
@Torqputty Gross... yeah lets further complicate the issue by bringing into question weapon choice. Hey maybe you've never been on a budget... but sometimes an AK is all you can afford. And sometimes....an AK works better.
@MackDX3Â @Torqputty Love my AK; an AR is more accurate (but less reliable due to tighter tolerances, AK is so reliable due to loose tolerances, but therefore less accurate), no doubt, but the AK will do the job out to 300 yds or so, which is all you need for urban combat. Anything longer and I'd be switching to a scoped rifle anyhow.
@Torqputty Do we really need people on the same side (I assume you are pro-2nd) criticizing each other for our personal choice of weapon(s)? How many here own a  Glock, Springfield XD, Taurus/Rossi, etc.. I  imagine most firearm owners have one or more that are Made in The USA and likely something made in another country ie: Russia, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Korea, China, Philippines, Germany, Italy etc.. What is important, is they support our Right to Bear Arms.
In every country where firearms have been banned or heavily regulated, violent crime has always gone up after those bans/laws. UK, Australia, Mexico, etc.Â
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2013/01/29/do-gun-bans-curb-violent-crime-part-2-of-3-on-reducing-violent-crime-in-the-us-n1499691/page/full/
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
So if banning guns/heavily regulating them leads to more violent crime, then why are anti-freedom people trying to push it? There's a mix of reasons. Some morons actually believe that you can legislate obedience, that just because you pass a law means people will obey it. Mexico is the main counterexample to show how with guns this leads to disastrous consequences. ie: all the law abiding civilians have been disarmed meanwhile this allowed the criminals to form huge and powerful drug cartels that rule Mexico with illegal weapons.
Another reason they want to ban guns despite the evidence showing that it will cause an INCREASE in violent crime is that many people here suffer from hoplophobia, or an irrational fear of weapons. You can see it in the comments. Given the schizophrenic cultural attitude towards firearms this is not surprising. We glamorize them in American media yet we teach children to be deathly afraid of them in real life and that to be near them is tantamount to physical death. This huge disparity has literally lead to "mental illness," as demonstrated by many comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
Another reason that people want to ban guns despite the fact that all the statistics prove them wrong on crime is that those people don't care about the statistics and are operating ignorantly out of their own personal experience. In short, nothing except being the victim of violent crime, will ever change their minds. This is reminiscent of what happened in the UK when one of the MPs who put forward the current ban on all weapons was victimized by gun violence afterward and then completely changed their mind and is now trying to reverse the ban there after they "saw the light."
Another reason is that people trust the government to run their lives, take care of them and solve all their problems. For instance, many anti-freedom people actually believe that calling the police will save them from crime. They fail to understand that the only thing police can do is take a picture of your dead body minutes or hours or days after the crime has been committed. Police are not superman, ready to swoop in at supersonic speed. They also trust the government to never be corrupt and never need the check on its power that the 2nd Amendment was put there to do. These people ignore the constant abuses of the government throughout history. From slavery, to persecution of Native Americans, to internment of Japanese Americans, to deceitto get us into Vietnam and finally to kidnapping, torturing and executing Americans in the name of "defense against terrorism," these people literally cover their eyes and can see or hear no evil from the government.Â
So lets recap, the 4 main reasons that anti-freedom crusaders want to ban guns: belief that law can forcefully compel action, irrational fear of weapons, lack of personal experience trumping real facts and statistics, and blind trust in an abusive and untrustworthy government.
Fortunately our Founding Fathers foresaw many of these and enshrined the right to bear arms within our constitution. It will be a long time before the sheeple who are motivated by all the above factors manage to change that, maybe never if educated and well-reasoned individuals win out.Â
@NW-Economist:  Well said. However, I think your words will fall to deaf ears. They just don't get it. It's amazing how irrational and ill-informed many of the gun-ban supports are.Â
@jlynnhood - same goes with the pro-gun fanatics. (no, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-fanatic, either side).
First of all, no gun ban is going to pass this Congress. It ain't happening, so the pro-gun fanatics need to reign in thier over-the-top wailing and nashing of teeth.
Second of all, all the information I've seen about Australia points in the opposite direction (as in reduced gun violence) since they implemented thier gun laws after thier last 'used a gun' massacre.
Third of all, anyone supporting thier point by using a right wing pro-gun website column written by Chuck Norris should re-think thier position. All of the points made are straw man points that fail to take into account the realities of the situations in each of his 'proofs of failure'. Example: There are hardly any laws in Mexico that are actually being followed, so how can Mexico be an honest example of a gun ban failure?  They have a near complete failure of thier legal system to deal with FIRST. If no one follows the law there, how can ANYONE expect a no jawalking law to be followed, let alone a gun ban...
The reason why quite a few people feel that way, has to do with what Dianne Feinstein said,..."If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
Why doesn't anyone see what an infringement is... a small step... another small step, and on and on until the right to ownership is gone.
Infringe ---- to encroach----
Encroach -- to take in small steps,
Look them up online if you have to..Merriam Webster...
@FormerMarineSgt @jlynnhoodWhere to begin, nearly everything you said was factually wrong or misdirected.
First off, it's not just a national issue. There's the attempt to pass an assault weapon ban in WA, SB 5737, as well as universal background checks (a bill that is severely flawed and would indirectly ban all private sales in WA as it is impossible to comply with the bill due to conflicting federal law). So, yes, something stupid may very well pass the state congress.
Second, the case of Australia from their own government shows their violent crime stats exploded after the gun ban. "All the info" you've seen is wrong, unless you care to back it up with evidence. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Third, picking on Chuck Norris is in itself s straw-man counter-argument because you are trying to ignore that you are wrong about all the facts and stats. In Mexico many of the common people do not own firearms because they are afraid of the police and how corrupt the police are. It's sad but when the police are as corrupt as the Mexican LEOs you wind up getting better compliance from ordinary citizens who can't afford bribes if a cop catches them doing something wrong.Â
I noticed you completely ignored the UK stats issue as well.Â
@FormerMarineSgt It is because politicians 90+% of the time go for the "all or nothing" approach to bills. If the current administration decided to push a "background only" bill I am quite certain it would pass with minimal resistance. However, they try to tie in so many earmarks, and unnecessary additions it makes the bill impassible.Â
@NW-EconomistThat completely ignores the cultural dynamics of each of those countries. The UK, for instance, is a far safer place with gun restriction.Â
@Citizen#3457899654Â @NW-EconomistAlso, assuming you had been right (which you weren't, you were completely wrong), how would the culture of the UK make it so a gun ban would fail there but a gun ban would work in America? That seems absurdly complicated and I really doubt you could make an intelligent case for that.
@Citizen#3457899654Â @NW-EconomistDid you read the articles? Did you read what I wrote. Violent crime, including gun crime, got WORSE after they banned guns. How can you say that the Uk is safer with gun restrictions when MORE crime and more VIOLENT CRIME happened there after the gun ban? Are you blind? t's exactly the opposite of what you're saying...
No more convalescing. Had enough, Iâm going back to work.
Catch yâall as I can, or care to. Adios.
Keep yer' powder dry.
@SargeMcC More power to you. Wish I could follow suit.
I overheard a couple of gun control advocates talking over the weekend and couldn't help but eavesdrop as they were the next table over in a restaurant and the lady was being belligerent about it. She said she wished that gun owners would take their guns and kill themselves. I turned around and said, "so much for you liberals wanting to end gun violence huh, hypocrite." Â
After a slightly heated conversation that i clearly won by superior knowledge of the Bill of Rights, and also logic... they paid and left. The clearly ignorant are who we are fighting on these issues. There's no compromise with them.
@VoiceofReason I over heard pro gun advocates talking about "how they should kill pregnant woman so they can't get abortions." and then I said after that I said "Little bit contradictory thing you just said."
You see you can lie about any thing on the internet.
@E @VoiceofReason You can apparently. I have the conviction to just tell the truth though.
Thanks for the laugh on the last part of this .... LOL
@whitewings2003 @VoiceofReason @E It's not the dress!
No.....your butt does.
@VoiceofReason @E Does this dress make me look fat?
 @VoiceofReason Sure you do. lol
I own a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. When I purchased my gun, I went through a background check...and once everything checked out fine, I took the gun home. My question to all you anti-gun people is: why are you trying to take my gun away (or at least my high capacity magazine)? Why are you trying to punish me, even though I have never committed a crime? Why do you think that by taking a gun from a law abiding citizen such as myself, you're going to stop the law breakers and the criminals out there? Explain.
@Silver_Shot
To answer your question about why they want you to give up your gun you have to consider this, there have been some horrific mass random shootings that ended with the shooters suicide. Many people in this country are horrified by these murders and want them stopped. Now hereâs the problem, the attacks are random making them difficult to avoid, the attacks take place in public places where the likely hood of armed resistance is very low, and the culprits committed suicide so there is no hope for punishment to be a deterrent. This is a very complex problem but many people want an instant answer and they have lost sight what will work and what is just a Band-Aid that makes them feel good but tramples the rights of others.
If you don't have it, it cannot be stolen from you by some criminal who breaks into your house while you are gone....
(I believe that is the line they are going for... )
@Mr. H And notice how not one of them has been able to answer my question. They know that they have no logical reason for wanting to ban these guns, other than their own personal dislike or fear of them....or because Obama says it must be done, and they just go along with whatever he says without question, like a bunch of robots.
@Silver_Shot I have a simple answer for them. I am disabled having lost the use of my right arm. While I can operate a bolt action rifle, its more convenient to use a semi-auto. 30 round mags make it easier for me to switch. If you can't operate a business or adapt hiring practices to discriminate against the disabled, why can you with gun laws?
@Silver_Shot On my rifle 30 rounds is the standard capacity. It isn't "high capacity"....
@Watcher3 Well, I used the term "high capacity" because I was addressing all the anti-gun people here...and to them and the government, any magazine that holds over 10 rounds is considered "high capacity".
@Scott Knowing their hatred and fear of guns...they probably consider anything that holds over 1 round to be "high capacity".
@Silver_Shot @Watcher3 Don't play into their trap! We shouldn't change definitions just to please them. 30 rounds is a standard capacity magazine for the AR-15. It's what it was designed to use. The 60,90, and 100 magazines and drums would be "high capacity", and heavy, and unreliable.