Seattle rally calls for assault weapons ban, stricter gun laws
SEATTLE - The issue of gun violence drew a huge crowd to Westlake Park on Sunday, as the issue of gun control loomed as a hot button issue across the country in the coming week.
Vice President Joe Biden is expected to send President Obama a list of recommendations for combating gun violence. But any crackdown on guns is expected to face resistance in Congress.
And in Seattle, a group called Washington CeaseFire rallied members of the community Sunday by marching across the city - many of them calling for "sensible gun legislation."
The rally, which included some local and state leaders, was aimed at remembering the victims of gun violence - and turning their anger into action.
"This is the short of message Olympia needs to hear," said Ed Murray as he and others marched from Westlake Center Park to Seattle Center with many moms, dads, grandparents and children. "No more children need to die."
"We have to come to really reasonable solutions around gun violence," added another attendee, Susan Weiss.
The rally, called "Stand-up Washington," is calling for a state ban on semi-automatic weapons as well as stricter gun laws.
"We had the tragedy one month ago in Connecticut. We had the tragedy at Café Racer. We've had gun violence in this city too many times," she said.
Pro-gun advocates want to see change, too - but of a different kind.
"It's got to be positive change, and we'd like to see things that actually work instead of punishing the wrong people," said Dave Workman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
He and his group are calling for improvements in the mental health system and tougher punishment for those who violate existing gun laws.
"There is another side to this story … and what the firearms community is trying to tell people is that there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country and they didn't hurt anybody," Workman says.
No matter what your position on gun control, local and state lawmakers are encouraging all to make their voice heard by contacting their representatives in Olympia.
Vice President Joe Biden is expected to send President Obama a list of recommendations for combating gun violence. But any crackdown on guns is expected to face resistance in Congress.
And in Seattle, a group called Washington CeaseFire rallied members of the community Sunday by marching across the city - many of them calling for "sensible gun legislation."
The rally, which included some local and state leaders, was aimed at remembering the victims of gun violence - and turning their anger into action.
"This is the short of message Olympia needs to hear," said Ed Murray as he and others marched from Westlake Center Park to Seattle Center with many moms, dads, grandparents and children. "No more children need to die."
"We have to come to really reasonable solutions around gun violence," added another attendee, Susan Weiss.
The rally, called "Stand-up Washington," is calling for a state ban on semi-automatic weapons as well as stricter gun laws.
"We had the tragedy one month ago in Connecticut. We had the tragedy at Café Racer. We've had gun violence in this city too many times," she said.
Pro-gun advocates want to see change, too - but of a different kind.
"It's got to be positive change, and we'd like to see things that actually work instead of punishing the wrong people," said Dave Workman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
He and his group are calling for improvements in the mental health system and tougher punishment for those who violate existing gun laws.
"There is another side to this story … and what the firearms community is trying to tell people is that there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country and they didn't hurt anybody," Workman says.
No matter what your position on gun control, local and state lawmakers are encouraging all to make their voice heard by contacting their representatives in Olympia.
Has any one heard about the pro-gun rally on the 8th of February? I also like how they showed Dragons man shooting range from Colorado Springs Co.
What about the 400,000 concealed permit holders in the state? Â We won't march but we will vote.
Let's take the 2nd literally, for a moment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Gun free zones are an infringement. Criminals who paid their dues to society when released, are free "people" - we cannot really deny them gun ownership (and I am not being sarcastic). There is no limitation on the type of "arms". They had canons at the time, but did not exclude them in the amendment. Any type of erosion of the constitution, whether by federal law, state law, or local governance must meet the majority voting requirements set to change the constitution, because in effect you are changing the rules. Most people are reasonable, so they accept certain limitations on their rights, but technically speaking, a lot of this is unconstitutional. Â
Well I have yet to hear an actual solution from anyone who supports further gun regulation.
Â
I have seen all kinds of statements about how bad it is to possess guns, but in light of the tragedy in Connecticut I want to know what can be done NOW to protect society, especially our kids.
Â
So far all I get is something along the lines of the "second amendment is out of date" or "there is no good reason to what to own a semi-automatic gun."
Â
Again, I understand in light of the resent events people are frustrated and want something done, but I want to hear WHAT can be done to ensure public safety NOW, not generations from now.
Â
John
Â
 @AKjohn Texas, Arizona, and Utah take practical approaches: http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/my-view-if-we-love-our-children-we-need-to-protect-them/?hpt=hp_bn1
Komo Dragon
Â
The anti-gun people would not want something like that because any idea other than to rid the world of guns in a bad idea in their eyes. Its pretty said.
Â
One thing the artical makes me think of off hand is back after the 9/11 attacks everyone screamed that we had to make air travel safer(yet people now complain about tightened security, TSA, and will threaten to sue and a moments notice if they believe there is any racial profiling going on).
Â
One of the answers was the FFDO Federal Flight Deck Officer program. The program allowed for those airline pilots who wanted(and felt they were able to) to go through additional screening and evaluations, and then be trained as Federal Air Marshals.
Â
The beauty of this program is participation is voluntary and not maditory. But everytime you fly the public never knows if one or more armed personnal are on board that flight. It makes a great deterrant. I was personally on board a flight a few years ago that had to divert due to an unruly passenger and the Captain even mentioned that we had a Marshal on board over the PA and we landed and removed the idiot without incedent(however it was 3 hours before Homeland Security allowed the plane to depart again). And yes the FFDO did leave the aircraft with the passanger after we landed.
Â
The same program could be easily extended to school teachers, college professors, as well as other school personal who are willing to apply and able to complete the backround checks and training since the system is already in place.
Â
Most Anti-gun people would be very closed minded to this idea only because as soon as you mention arming someone that just causes the narrow minded to shut down.
Â
Other news articles report Obama as saying he will use executive privilege to by-pass congress where ever he needs, or can. How arrogant is this guy? He keeps going down this path, our nation is in for a world of hurt. @Bubba Gunners, you won't be alone.
 @SargeMcC  @Bubba won't hold against constitutional matters
I dare the government to take my guns. Seriously. I may go down in a hail of fire, but by god, you'll find my body lying in a pile of brass.Â
They can attempt another failed ban if they wish, but they can't change this:
Â
Americans Buy Enough Guns in Last Two Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Armies
Â
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/americans-buy-enough-guns-in-last-two-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/
There is one GIGANTIC flaw with this whole argument. People who don't own guns are fine passing all the laws they can think of to ban something that doesn't impact them. How about we propose that for every gun confiscated, those who don't own guns have to repay those for the cost of the weapon taken. Sounds loony right? That's the same argument women used in abortion rights. Its HER body and a man has no say. Well, its my rifle, its easy to wipe away rights when they don't apply to you.
 @Xirxious lol, or what if they censor what they say?
Next thing the gun control people will want the movie Christmas Story banned. How dare we as a society would let a classic movie introduce kids to anykind of gun at such a young age.
 @AKjohn that's were we are heading, BB guns for every citizen, and that's how we protect the 2nd Amendment and the Christmas story.
But you'll shoot our eye out :)
I cant help but wonder what rights, freedoms or benefits they are stealing right now while the masses are focused on this. They aren't coming for your guns, they're coming for something else right now.
 @T_BONE_WALKER the 4th has already been taken with the Patriot Act that Obama extended.
I am sure that Komo's crack reporting just missed it, but when they say that they want to ban "semi-automatics" do they include self-loading pistols as well? Are we to go back to carrying six-guns under this brilliant plan?
Imagine a world where all these so called assault weapons are no longer in existence and all the bad guys have left is colt six shooters. Guess what gun is next to be banned? Yup. This all points in one direction. HOLD FAST with the freedoms we have now or play this ever shrinking game of "ban the evil guns" until all we have left are forks and knives.
Â
Dont give them ANYTHING.
 @Zanshin Until they realize my .45LC does a helluva lot more damage than the lowly 9mm.....
 @Zanshin As I have pointed out in another post  Dianne Feinstein's bill would more or less ban most modern firearms.
Â
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Â
Even Iowa politicians are calling for door to door gun confiscation, just like what was done after Katrina. Â
Â
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/
Â
 @Zanshin Plenty of commentators on this site have rallied for that plan. A lawmaker in Connecticut wants to restrict all firearms to single-shot models.
All rifles accounted for 323 homicides in 2011 ( the most current I could find on FBI website), knives were 1694 and hands feet were 728. Out of those 323 how many were "assault weapons"? Why is it that the anti gun crowd feels the need to vilify a particular type of weapon that accounts for such a small percentage of homicides?Â
sb in seattle 357 pts "Where do you get the 323 gun (rifles) deaths? The US had 8775 deaths by guns last year."
Â
In the word of Archie Bunker, "would it make you feel any better if they had been pushed out of windows"?
 @AKjohn These are FBI statistics. Also please note NOT ALL 323 "rifle" murders were by assault rifle. NOT ALL were civilians pulling the trigger. An "assault weapons ban" is a witch hunt. Alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals each kill more people every single day of the year than all year long using a rifle, let alone an assault rifle.http://goo.gl/JzGgL
Â
 @KittySmasher Because a bunch of white kids got shot. Blacks have been shooting each other for decades all over south central L.A. and no one cares. But white kids in suburbia??? We must ban guns. So racist.Â
@KittySmasher. Where do you get the 323 gun (rifles) deaths? The US had 8775 deaths by guns last year. The UK where they have strict gun laws: 58. 2nd amendment is outdated. Sorry you paranoid gun toting people, itâs not the 18th century.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
Â
 @sb in seattle Reading is not your strong point is it?
 @sb in seattle These are FBI statistics. Also please note NOT ALL 323 "rifle" murders were by assault rifle. NOT ALL were civilians pulling the trigger. An "assault weapons ban" is a witch hunt. Alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals each kill more people every single day of the year than all year long using a rifle, let alone an assault rifle.http://goo.gl/JzGgL
 @sb in seattle Reading comprehension issues. Note the word, "rifle". Not ALL guns. Oh, and in the UK, gun deaths are low, yes, because guns are illegal. Violent crime, however (beatings, stabbings, strangulation, etc, etc) are through the roof and are poised to continue their upwards trend. So remove the guns, and the biggest and strongest rule over the weak, stabbing, beating and choking people to death. I think I'd prefer the US, where when some thug comes to me for protection money, I pull out my 45 and tell him to get lost. Even though I'm half his size, it puts me on equal ground with the bully. I may end up having to shoot him (another tick on "gun deaths" in biased stats) to save my life, but I'd prefer that over having to fight someone hand to hand when I'm at a severe disadvantage. Shot or stabbed/beaten/strangled.....dead is dead. The UK is one of the most violent countries right now.....they just don't shoot each other.
@KittySmasher because of school shootings? if there were no rifles, then the school shootings wouldn't be in the news, and we could get back to ignoring the rest of the murderers killing the other 9000 people
 @KittySmasher Because they are scaaaaary looking. And because the shootings which get the most media publicity, beyond all reason, are the ones where a rifle with a military analogue is used.
They will be going after air soft SNIPER pellet guns now!
Â
http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/news/crime/814393-police-deputy-shot-pellet-gun-sniper-downtown-seattle
Â
Â
So let me get this straight...for everyone who is typing for hours and hours and supportive of any type of ban. It doesn't matter HOW 26 prople were murdered, it is just the number that were murdered.
Â
In other words, if 26 people had their throats slashed or gasoline thrown on them and set fire then wouldn't the results be the same? Twenty-six dead people.
Â
However, if one, two, three, four or five people were shot it would be no big deal because no clip/magazine involved, no "assault weapon" involved.
Â
Aren't we more interested in STOPPING who can own, possess or buy a weapon, clip or no clip.
Â
How many children could be murdered if another Adam type individual opens fire with two double barrel shotguns. Perhaps 10, or maybe just two or three provided he doesn't reload.
Â
You will accomplish NOTHING until you address the real problem...........MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES!!!
 @Magicalwoman BINGO!! I would be wholly supportive of making mental health records available to the NICS system (firearms background checks for those who don't know), better defining what constitutes mental instability, and finding better treatments instead of pumping somebody full of drugs. Why isn't that being addressed?
@acmariner99 @Magicalwoman because if we ban scary looking guns, we'll feel better: We can't be bothered to think about it long enough to come up with a better solution. we ban guns now, and if something bad happens later, we'll come up with another knee jerk feel good solution
Reasons for people to own long guns aka semi-automatic rifles (anti-gun liberals call them assault guns) 1. Store owners to defend looters in acts of riots. 2. Citizen's to protect property after a natural disaster (Hurricane, Tornado, Earthquake). 3. Something called the 2nd Amendment
Â
Now for those who don't think these are viable options let me remind you what has happen recently.
Â
Los Angeles riots in 1992, when business owners were forced to defend their property from angry mobs causing severe chaos: $1 billion in property damage, 50 dead, 4,000 injured, 3,000 fires set and 1,100 buildings damaged. In this case, a handheld pistol was in no way sufficient, but semi-automatic rifles were.
Â
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. New Orleans became a place of complete anarchy in a matter of hours. In addition to property owners being forced to stave off mobs of people roaming for food, water and shelter to survive as the government failed to provide emergency services, they had to protect themselves against dangerous looters. But not only were New Orleans residents forced to defend themselves against immediate threats to their person and property, residents also had to protect themselves from the government.
Â
The New York Times reported in September 2005, âNo civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms.â The paper pointed out that rich residents and business were allowed to hire hundreds of security guards with firearms to protect them. Sadly, the poor in New Orleans didnât have the same luxury. Superintendent of police at the time P. Edwin Compass III said, âOnly law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.â What happened days before weapons confiscation was tyranny of the worst kind. Henry Glover, a 31-year-old black man was shot and killed by New Orleanâs police officers. They also burned his body. A New Orleans police officer was laughing after he burned the body of a man who had been gunned down by police in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, a fellow officer testified Thursday. The testimony came during the trial of officer Greg McRae and Lt. Dwayne Scheuermann, who are charged with burning the body of 31-year-old Henry Glover in a car after he was shot and killed by a different officer outside a strip mall on Sept. 2, 2005. Three other current and former officers also are charged in Glover's death. A former officer, David Warren, is charged with shooting Glover. Prosecutors say Glover wasn't armed and didn't pose a threat to Warren. Scheuermann and McRae are accused of beating people who drove Glover to a makeshift police headquarters in search of help. The three men were handcuffed when the officers drove off with the car containing Glover's body. Former Lt. Robert Italiano and Lt. Travis McCabe are accused of falsifying a report to make it appear Glover's shooting was justified.
Â
Georgia women shoots man 5 times and survives. The mother said she could see the suspectâ now identified as Paul Slaterâ trying to enter the house with the crowbar from her office window. Without hesitation, she grabbed her children, her phone, her gun, and ran upstairs âThe perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time heâs staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,â [Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman] told Channel 2âs Kerry Kavanaugh. The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved. âSheâs standing over him, and she realizes sheâs fired all six rounds. And the guyâs telling her to quit shooting,â Chapman said.
Â
So for people who believes that ANY private citizen absolutely does NOT need an assault weapon, I am willing to wager the store owners (who are private citizens), Henry Glover (another private citizen), The woman in Georgia (guess what *gasp* another private citizen) as well as the 6 million or so Jews under the NAZI regime and the 12 million or so under the Stalin regime (I see a pattern here, yep you guess it more private citizens) would beg to differ. Also if we are going to ban the so call "assault weapons", we might as well ban cars, alcohol, "blunt objects" (such as hammers), fertilizer because they are killing people. *sarcasm*
 @cards5 Finally, someone who ACTUALLY gets it!
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
 @cards5 Bravo, sir
@Count_Screamalot Ok I took your advice. Is that better?
One thing I don't understand is what reality are anti gunners living in? They say right now their focus is on high capacity magazines that work in 'assault weapons'. I can understand this, it makes them scared of another Newtown. But what I don't understand is why in the face of people who are still out there, suffering from the same mental health issues that most every mass killer has been known to suffer from before hand, why is the anti gun crowd unwilling to take action today, right now, immediately, to protect our kids?
Â
I have not heard one call from the anti gun crowd to put armed police in the schools that don't already have armed police protecting the kids. Any anti gun movement from our government will take months if not years to apply. And, since there is a great number of anti gunners that say they don't want to nullify to 2nd amendment, do they think that just because these sick individuals that do these killings will just give up? Multiple revolvers which are not semi automatic, can kill as many as an assault weapon as defined by the anti gunners.
Â
If the anti gun crowd was serious about their beliefs that the safety of people is more important than guns they would protect the people just like they protect politicians and movie stars. It is not often you hear of famous movie stars getting killed by guns probably because they all have armed security to prevent this. Can't we also protect the most precious stars, our kids, the same way? And for those that are going to bring up the shooting in AZ this was done by a mentally ill person, just like the Reagan shooting. I don't know of any armed security detail that Giffords had but Reagan had and this most likely saved his life. I know though that I would morn my child's death much more than a politician's death. Again, why no armed police at schools?
Â
Any deranged individual with some mental capacity will be able to get a gun. I was living in Germany that has an extremely low murder rate from guns. While there a police officer was shot. Someone ambushed the officer and took his gun. When the person was captured he said that he just wanted to experience shooting someone. Police are trained well in America to prevent their gun being taken away but someone who is willing to commit such a crime (mentally ill people for the most part) for what ever reason will be able to. A lot of police cruisers have assault weapons in the trunk and enough ammunition for a few Newtown killings.
Â
So again why, if the reason for the anti gun crowd is safety of our people are they only willing to ban guns from everyday civilians? They are not going to stop another Newtown with such thinking and effort. The anti gun crowd is in their own reality, one that violence has never visited, for them to think their path will even make a dent. The only purpose behind the anti gun crowd no matter the rhetoric from them is to nullify the 2nd amendment completely. They will pervert the Newtown killings to their own purpose to complete this task for if they were serious about ending deaths more then they are about nullifying the 2nd amendment they would have called for and demanded armed police at every school. This does not take a politician to do. This does not take congress to pass. This is something that can be done and can be saving our kids life's now if only the anti gun crowd was honest in their goal of saving lives. They will sacrifice another Newtown to further their plan. If I am wrong prove it with everyone who marched in Seattle calling for armed police at every school across this country, every one of the anti gun posters here posting for armed police across the nation.Â
@Beam_Me_Up I am an anti-gun (or semi-automatic weapon) "crowd" member. I do agree with putting armed officers in school. Why can't the gun-pro crowd agree to having background checks and firmer regulations for a person to acquire guns. I think this coupled with harsher punishment for violaters could really help since it is clear that most American's would never consider giving up thier gun rights until they are directly victimed to a tragedy such as Newtown. My biggest issue is that it seems that the gun crowd is not even willing to budge in the slightest with what they consider to be thier right, do you think our founding forefathers envisioned a country like ours? With weaponry like ours? If guns can not be taken away, then why can't they at least be further regulated?
your right im not willing to budge on this issue because nobody that makes these descisions are talking about mental health as the problem. a gun can'not kill anything until someone picks it up and pulls the trigger. if i wait for the police to help out i will be dead before they get thier. so dont take away my right to protect my self, if you want to be a victom than by all rights give up your gun but don't stand in the way of me to protect my family.
Â
 @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up I am pro-gun and I am for national registration and licensing (with training attached depending on whether you want to own, hunt, or carry), but I am not for banning anything (VT was hand guns only, and is still the largest on the books)
 @Zanshin  @seetheproblem they still need a warrant, they may have an easier time explaining "probable cause" to the magistrate judge.
Â
There are already many things we register, including cars, air planes, boats, pets, homes, businesses, even the wife ;-) I am not going to sweat it if the government knows.
Â
Registration will not keep guns from the bad guys, but it will make it harder.
 @acmariner99  @Dave Lancaster  @Count_Screamalot i think those were permit holders, not gun owners, but still ... - Btw, registry is not public record
 @Count_Screamalot  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up It discourages law abiding gun owners transfering guns to the other side
 @Dave Lancaster  @Komo "what cars weren't stolen because they were registered?"
What unregistered stolen cars were returned to the current owners, since those people were not known?
@Komo Dragon, what cars weren't stolen because they were registered? what drunk drivers used unregistered cars when they broke the law? Registration is an attempt at feel good legislation, because it doesn't prevent the things you seek to prevent. criminals get guns, and criminals use guns, start looking at ways to affect this behavior, examples could be.. (keep them in prison, punish them longer, lop of their trigger finger) Jumping on the wagon and limiting the freedoms of those that did nothing is the wrong strategy.
 @seetheproblem  @Komo yes that's what we want to prevent, but people who would play the system could declare guns stolen, aka gone missing. A registry would slow any such activity.Â
@acmariner99 @Count_Screamalot , yes sarcasm, even the 2nd sentence was sarcasm, because that doesn't happen either. (well it may have happened once, but I dont have a cite)
 @seetheproblem     You don't get it do you? We have a law that requires a warrant to search your residence or automobile for a reason. By registering every firearm in the country you have, in a sense, remove that need of a warrant. That law protects you just as it does a gun owner.
Â
I wonder, where you among the crowd that protested personal body searches at airports? I mean they are there to protect the public right? How many more rights are you willing to give up in the name of a false sense of security?
Â
During all of this, do you know who will not be affected? Criminals. Registration will not keep guns from the hands of bad guys.
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up And, really, all that registration would do would set the government up for another way to tax us (which is the purpose behind vehicle registration).
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up I'd be fine with requiring background checks for private-party sales if the feds could come up with a quick, cost-effective solution, say some kind of online system. Having to go to a private FFL and pay whatever fee they charge just so I can transfer a firearm to a family member would be a pain in the ass.
Â
I'm still not convinced that registration will solve any problem. It's just another set of laws, another layer of federal bureaucracy. It would require a whole new government dept. to register the 300 million firearms already in circulation.
@Komo Dragon Why would you have multiple guns go missing? Isn't that what we are all trying to prevent? Aside from that part I think your recommendations are great.
 @Count_Screamalot  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up I think we can agree that background checks at the time of transfer is a good thing, and should include private sales and gun shows. We can also agree that licensing with training would be a good thing. Registration puts a a little onus on the gun owner to pay attention to where the gun is or goes. If you require sales to go through a background check, what keeps a scrupulous gun owner from ignoring this requirement. It would be a crime, but it had a low risk of being detected. If you had a registry and the gun went missing, you would have to answer a few uncomfortable questions. You may get away with it once or twice but not more often than that. If the government were to confiscate guns on a larger scale, they would violate the Constitution and you would have the right to fight back. Confiscating 300m weapons is not done over night.
@Gadsden So how would you recommend we find out wo is "out of control emotionally. I don't display homicidal tendencies, etc." without having registration or background checks? The people who ARE the problem are going to offer up the information that would prevent them from having a weapon.
 @seetheproblem  @Gadsden  @Komo  @Beam_Me_Up It might be a ridiculous defense, as you call it, if the Third Amendment said I had to right to own a car.
 @seetheproblem  @Gadsden  @Komo  @Beam_Me_Up I like how me asking why there needs to be registration leads you to say I suggested nothing be done. The bottom line though, is that the Government doesn't need to know what's in my safe. I'm not mentally unstable. I'm not suffering from mental health issues. I'm not out of control emotionally. I don't display homicidal tendencies, etc. I am not the problem, stop trying to punish me, the average gun owner.
 @Count_Screamalot  @Dave Lancaster If so - he got me good.
 @Dave Lancaster  @Count_Screamalot Wait. Was your first sentence sarcasm?
 @Dave Lancaster  @Count_Screamalot Have you heard about the newspaper in New York that published a list of gun owners? It is not your right to know what I am doing with my private affairs. You want me snooping around in your life to taint you as I please?
 @seetheproblem  @acmariner99 Umm .. private health care? I never made any indication of using public money for public health care. Maybe if we didn't over-regulate the health care system, there would be more money available. My taxes are high enough, thank you.
@Count_Screamalot well, we would know who has the guns, so if we wanted to publish their names in the paper and taint them as gun nuts, we could do that much easier. Or if we found a gun, that some crook used in a crime, we could return it to the proper owner, after useing it for evidence to convict the crook.
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up What registration actually solve? The only people who would register their guns would be the law-abiding gun owners, and they are not the problem.
@acmariner99 Are you ok with your taxes being raised to support more care and attention?
 @seetheproblem  @RN1  @Komo  @Beam_Me_Up seethe problem: my solution would be to use systems we already have in place to better enforce the laws on the books. I would support making mental health records available to the NICS system so as to deny a purchase to somebody and perhaps more rigorous definitions of mental instability - but like any gov't system, it is prone to abuse and use for which it wasn't intended. Several states already do this. What I would like to see is more care and attention to those who are mentally imbalanced and would be prone to conducting the type of attacks we saw last year.
@RN1 @Komo Dragon @Beam_Me_Up Ok, so what is your solution? Or do you see no problem?
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up I am against registration because the registration list is prone to abuse, hacking, and theft. It also is a necessary precursor to "mere possession of unregistered weapon" being a crime (mostly a problem for otherwise law abiding), and confiscation as well. It's expensive and ineffective as a crime-fighting tool (as Canada found out, after more than $2B spent, so they scrapped the system).
Â
Background checks from FFL I've got no huge problem with, as long as it's fast, reliable, and the default is "if a person is not explicitly prohibited, then they may buy", though the idea of asking the FedGov for permission to exercise a right is kind of annoying.
@Gadsden @Komo Dragon @Beam_Me_Up Furthermore research the patriot act, you are worried about registering guns as an invasion of privacy? Is registering a home? A car? That is a ridiculous defense.
@Gadsden @Komo Dragon @Beam_Me_Up
so instead you suggest we do nothing? Registration leads to confiscation when a person has a gun who shouldn't.
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up Why does there need to be registration? That's Invasion of privacy, it might even border unreasonable search by act of forcing you to reveal something in private ownership.
Â
I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean the government needs to know what's in my safe.
 @Komo Dragon  @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up Registration leads to confiscation - not necessarily right away, but it happens eventually. I oppose any new gun-control legislation because government programs that have "good intentions" never work out that way. What you suggest sounds like a good idea, but it will only start the ball rolling for what the anti's really want: the end of the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention I am firm in my belief that new regulations will not solve the underlying problem.
 @seetheproblem  @Beam_Me_Up My main problem is they slowly creep in regulations. First it will be eliminating hi cap mags, then it will be better background checks, then sale by permit only, then registering ammo ect. All if which impacts millions who never committed a crime. It will become a bureaucratic system that slowly erodes our rights. If politicians agree to work with the NRA on a system that requires a background check, but not a registration of the weapon, I'd be in favor of that. The other problem I have is if we are required to register every gun, then when a shooting happens, are they going to question everyone who owns that caliber of a gun?  Seeing that there are already over a million unregistered guns out there, restricting new ones will only create a black market for the ones out there. Michigan has a mandatory registration of all handguns. You get a permit, safety check the gun and have a card with your name and gun serial that has to be in your possession whenever you carry the gun.
 @seetheproblem  @Xirxious  @Beam_Me_Up The Flaw in registering is, like in 1930's Russia and Germany, they knew where to go disarm the 'subjects' first. I think they should require a permit to buy and use, but it shouldn't be record who has what gun. This permit should be required when buying ammo, too. The downside it is creates a huge black market for guns not in the system when it starts.
 Mich does a full background check, then issues you a purchase permit. You then take the pistol back to them and register it.
@Xirxious @Beam_Me_Up Michigans regulations seem good to me as well as a background check. If you have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong then what is the problem there? The second ammendment does not defend unregistered weapons and who in their right mind would argue that a convicted criminal or mentally unstable person should have a gun? If your argument is regarding inconvenience then consider what you are giving up (time) in exchange for what you are receiving (safety and hopefully prevented deaths). The fact is that there is no easy solution, you are completely right about unregistered guns and I think that is the bigger issue here-- thousands of guns unaccounted for and ending up in the hands of an irresponsible owner.
@Beam_Me_Up you'll just get the trite answer "more guns is not the answer" or "don't use violence to stop violence"Â or "they'll just shoot the guard first"
 @Beam_Me_Up Come to the 2A rally in Olympia this Saturday at high noon - we will be proposing to our Legislature much of what you actually suggest.
 @acmariner99  @Beam_Me_Up 2A is awfully close to AA. I would change that name ...