Mayor asking Seattle businesses to go ‘gun-free’

reply to post by crazyewok

What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Its is understood by the common man. We have waiting periods, background checks and no carry zones. But for the criminal it means nothing when a person can get one unchecked and "UNREGULATED" no waiting period no B.C. As long as their are criminals in the US their will be guns. How about going after the system that will send a druggy to jail for 20 years and let a murder back on the street. Or our good old gooberment that will and has supplied guns and weapons to drug cartels, they dont care about a "well regulated militia". When John Q. Public is disarmed this country will fall.

Folks... We don't need to debate or argue the definition of Second Amendment language. Prior to 2009, we sure did and many a very loud and energetic debate was to be had cross our land. Many... However, with 2009 came the final and VERY overdue clarification by Super Court interpretation of what that language means. Folks can disagree ..and they can argue with a stone wall too. It'll have exactly the same end result for a Super Court ruling.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Source: DC Vs. Heller (2009)

Until or unless that case is overturned in some future Super Court ruling, that's the law of the land..and again, I know some people would argue the authority of the court..but do argue it to that stone wall. It'll be more interested, too.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


The supreme court already has clarified the meaning and intention of the second amendment, it stands as it is, regardless of the wishful thinking of anti gun advocates.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


While it is more convenient in this case to embrace the SCOTUS, I rarely base my arguments on such a ridiculously inconsistent body. They are the Adam Dunn of jurisprudence, either hitting a towering homerun or completely swinging, missing, and crapping the bed as they did with the (bought and paid for) Obamacare decision.

burdman30ott6
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

(bought and paid for) Obamacare decision.

Coerced decision.

You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with all of that collected personal and private communications data etc.

IMO

reply to post by CB328


Will the State of Washington Also Supply the Free " Come on in Yall and Rob Us, we are Unarmed " Signs for the Businesses that would be Dumb enought to do such a STUPID thing Libby ?

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

While it is more convenient in this case to embrace the SCOTUS, I rarely base my arguments on such a ridiculously inconsistent body. They are the Adam Dunn of jurisprudence, either hitting a towering homerun or completely swinging, missing, and crapping the bed as they did with the (bought and paid for) Obamacare decision.

At times I agree and shy from using SCOTUS even when precedent may apply. Several cases I had to write essays on in my PLS course were great for things to use in debate but also so obscure as to leave most people with confused looks of '...and we should care what happened in 18xx because??"

Well.. It matters because 100 years from now, DC Vs. Heller will still be used to put Government in their place on the narrow points it did make final decision on, every single time the lines are crossed and challenged ...unless a case comes up where they reverse themselves.

This was one of those defining cases, like Miranda, where an entire national issue becomes redefined by it. Imagine, for a moment, what the reality would be today had that decision gone the OTHER way? It's why no less a group than the NRA themselves fought against having this taken to the Supreme Court at all. GOA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation told them to suck eggs and did it anyway ... a HUGE gamble .. HUGE... but it worked and it was a jackpot ruling for Gun owners nationally.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

What you posted is from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which overlays the responsibilities of Congress. A1S8 is NOT part of the Bill of Rights so there is no other part of the 2nd amendment that Neo failed to post. He posted the whole thing. Don't muddy the waters by making it seem like the pro-gun side is hiding information.

No, it's not in the bill of rights, but it's part and parcel to the 2nd Amendment itself. The reason that well regulated bit is in the bill of rights to begin with.

Y'all freak out whenever someone even mentions gun regulation, but as it's part of the 2nd Amendment that you guys say you love so much, it simply expresses the opinion that every armed member of this society has the civic duty to defend this nation, not only against hostile foreign invaders, but insurrections within the nation.

Fact of the matter is, they should put every single gun owner through boot camp in this country. You buy a gun, either go to boot camp or prove your military service.

reply to post by HauntWok


Haunt, I'd agree if we can see our way clear to add a companion to the 'Boot Camp For Gun Owners'. While we make sure everyone who wants to own a gun passes the boot and no physically weak or otherwise awkward people are every able to offer personal defense? Let's institute a basic aptitude test and intelligence standard for voting. We can make One test. One version with a few thousand questions to rotate in pure random order to make learning previous exams worthless unless you're SO intelligent, memorization is unnecessary anyway.

When we can weed out the idiot voters who clog up the booths every couple years? Well then, I could see at least talking about imposing draconian and exclusionary requirements for a citizen to exercise their God given right, as the document states.

reply to post by CB328


Four flags ? Who would flag this ?

How about clearing our streets of punk ass cowards who shouldn't have guns. Instead of eye balling
the people who should have them.

Last Sunday night. Victimville Ca.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


It's parcel to owning a firearm. If one is to be a responsible gun owner, then one has to take on the responsibilities that come with that power.

You buy a gun, you are in your state militia, and must report to boot camp for training, and be accountable to the state in which you reside if the need for your services should arise. (say in case of a natural disaster) This would go a long way to proving to me that gun owners aren't just maniacs hell bent on slaughtering their fellow countrymen in cold blood when they decide to play red dawn.

Plus this would go a long way to fixing many problems with this nation. Like the over bloated military budget. Do you know that it was the idea of the founding fathers to not even have a standing army? If the need arose for ab army, then congress could fund it, but no longer than two years at a time. It was the idea that they would disband the army in times of peace, (saving buku tax dollars) National defense went to the state militias, (that would be you gun owners) And it's the greatest national defense strategy in history. Instead of a standing army, you have rednecks, cowboys, thugs, gangstas, hunters, para military wannabes, every Tom Dick and Harry having a gun (and the discipline to know how to use one without shooting themselves in the leg) defending this nation from any outside invading force.

It's not outrageous for those that wish to be gun owners to be held responsible for their states defense is it? They would be part of their state's militia, commanded by a state officer.

Think of the problems this could solve, say in Arizona, where you have loads of people wanting to get into this country illegally, and not enough manpower to police the entire boarder. Well, with the state militia comprised of legal gun owners from across Arizona, you could effectively patrol that boarder.

And if you can't pass boot camp, well, you probably wouldn't be able to deal with a firearm to begin with anyway.

Let's institute a basic aptitude test and intelligence standard for voting. We can make One test. One version with a few thousand questions to rotate in pure random order to make learning previous exams worthless unless you're SO intelligent, memorization is unnecessary anyway.

When we can weed out the idiot voters who clog up the booths every couple years? Well then, I could see at least talking about imposing draconian and exclusionary requirements for a citizen to exercise their God given right, as the document states.

That's absurd, no Republican would ever get elected again. You would have insane democratic majorities in both houses, and the white house. It just wouldn't be right for the Right.

reply to post by HauntWok


Again, I respect your opinion. I honestly and sincerely do. I know that may not sound sincere by who I am and how harsh I can be at times..but let me say why. I respect your opinion because I can clearly see you've put real time and effort into hashing it out in your mind and thinking through support to it. It's not some idiot response, like many we all see, where hyperbole just to anger someone else is all it really boils down to. No... Your notes here remind me of me....with 180 degree polar opposite world view, of course.

I see your point on where you're coming from. At least I think I do on your militia approach. It's not workable and it's as unconstitutional as banning speech, but I see the logic to it. The 2nd was made with the express purpose of Government ..Federal first but ALL Government ultimately...NOT having the ability to disarm the populace for the servitude which would and often does follow. Even a Militia with the level of organization you suggest is too much for the lines and guides of the 2nd, particularly with the supporting logic as the Super Court highlights in both the Heller and McDonald cases for all to go look up on their own regarding it.


^^ having said that? I think I get you to mean the main problem is a total lack of any training or even basic safety. Now that I can agree with too....I cannot, however, agree with ANY reasonable way to address that and stay right with the Constitution. It's like the Poll Tax. You know there was very solid logic and reasoning for that....if you ask the people who enforced it for the longest time. It was just a little warped to the black men in line at the ballot who held their $1 or whatever it was for a place while watching the SAME $1 get run back around from the back door to the next white man in line. So many ways to warp and pervert rights once restrictions and conditions are placed. Even reasonable ones, at first.


As far as the intelligence thing..That was sarcasm to make the point...but since you add the partisan edge? I'd remind everyone it wasn't a Republican who asked a U.S. Navy Admiral if Guam would capsize like a row boat in a storm if too many Military were redeployed to our bases there. Not once...but 3 times...just to remove ALL doubt that he wasn't kidding like he weakly claimed later. Stupid isn't partisan...it's a universal trait with a media that makes sure we just hear EVERY example of stupid to one particular side at the moment.

reply to post by HauntWok


Or just go to the gun range all the time , but hey why have a gun if you aren't going to shoot it ! Boot camp hahahahahahahaahaha

reply to post by wrabbit2000

It's not workable and it's as unconstitutional as banning speech, but I see the logic to it.

It is entirely workable, and it is constitutional under Article I Section 8 Clauses 15 & 16:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

As you can see, completely kosher with the Constitution. It would offer people the training and discipline necessary to safely use firearms, and perhaps the understanding that guns aren't toys, and maybe the targets of these people shouldn't be Constitutionally elected officials, crowds of theatre goers, mall crawlers, and school students.

It would also fulfill the first part of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't supposed to be a national guard, but a state controlled Militia.

It would go a long way to making a lot of anti gun people feel better if they knew the people that owned guns were actually held accountable for being trained and disciplined in the use of their firearms instead of any jackaninny with an F350 on oversized tires (reflective of the diminutive size of his member) going in and getting a AR-15 with a bunch of 30 round magazines and dreaming of the day red dawn comes true so that he can finally tear the heart out of a deer and eat it while it's still warm.

But as it stands now, the more that the pro gun crowd fights against any and all regulation, the more it makes it seem that they don't have the constitution at heart, and in fact are the very people that US Citizens should be protected by our states Militias from. (that would be the suppress insurrections bit above)

Which in the end might be the trump card the US Government may use against gun rights advocates, basically telling them to join the Militia or be labeled an insurrectionist and be hauled off to be executed (Article III Section III of the United States Constitution)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Bold and Underline added for emphasis.

Not that I'm saying that would happen, it just could happen. There is a growing group of people in this nation that want to violently overthrow this Constitutionally elected government, and replace it with a far more fascist ideology, as evidenced by the fact that they want to violently overthrow a Constitutionally elected government because of imagined slights against them instead of going the non violent route and electing officials that would better suit their own ideal of what freedom really means. Someday, the government will turn on these people they will have to, because they will become a threat to national security, and it will be the government's Constitutional duty to defend this nation against these domestic enemies. It's a sad reality, but if gun rights advocates keep siding with those that want to violently overthrow this government based on the Declaration of Independence (which was basically a dear john letter to George the III of England, and doesn't apply today), they may find themselves on the wrong side of a very sad and bloody fight. Which ultimately won't do anything in the end but further erode the Constitutional protections we already are losing.

As far as the intelligence thing..That was sarcasm to make the point...but since you add the partisan edge? I'd remind everyone it wasn't a Republican who asked a U.S. Navy Admiral if Guam would capsize like a row boat in a storm if too many Military were redeployed to our bases there. Not once...but 3 times...just to remove ALL doubt that he wasn't kidding like he weakly claimed later. Stupid isn't partisan...it's a universal trait with a media that makes sure we just hear EVERY example of stupid to one particular side at the moment.

Oh I understood it, and my response was equally sarcastic.

Lol, Mc Ginn is such an idiot. While his head has been buried firmly up his sunshine and care-bears rectum, he failed to notice thAT:

1. Washington has a very high number of gun owners.
2. Seattle has a very high number of gun owners.
3. Walk around Seattle and talk to people, you will be surprised that even liberals here own guns, or support gun ownership.
4. Washington is a will-issue concealed carry permit state. You have any clue how many people around here are packing heat incognito? Really, McGinn needs to get out more.


Maybe McGinn should focus on more serious issues affecting this town. Like the huge number of vagrants, panhandlers, and ne'er do wellers choking Westlake Center, Pike's Market, which have been a huge and growing problem. Compared to other metro areas, Seattle has a relatively low gun crime rate. However, it has a huge population of homeless and druggies, and they cause a lot of problems, from aggressive panhandling to assaults, theft, vandalism, and destructive loitering.

To give you an example of how utterly retarded this is, I used to work security down in the Pike's Market area, right next to Steinbrueck Park, a favorite haunt for transients and druggies. During the three months I worked there, there was a restaurant across the street where some guy went in and robbed it with a KNIFE, stabbing a few people in the process. In addition, stabbings and beatings were very common occurrences in the park. However, not once were firearms involved in any incident. KNIVES. SHANKS. But no guns.

You are way more likely to get stabbed than shot in this town, trust me. The only places I can see this idiot campaign gaining any support are Capital Hill and Rainier Valley.

I think most of these anti gun people are NOT in the upper age category.

Once you hit your mid 50's you realize your strength is no match to a 20's african american male.

A gun is an equalizer.

reply to post by HauntWok


Look, I said this before.... You can say you don't like what the Supreme Court says. You can say it's wrong and they are idiots. You can even say it's illegal that they are the ruling body to determine what is and what isn't legal.

However... They don't care. The law doesn't care and no one who enforces the law in the United States will care. Our opinion is 100% and totally irrelevant to the situation. The fact that DOES matter is....everything you're suggesting is prohibited..outright and without any question or issue...by the 2nd Amendment and backed up fully by interpretation of the Supreme Court on that Amendment....to end with Heller being the ultimate defining case.

As noted, in that case, it was determined that Militia refers to the adult population of the United States. No training, signup, organization or other form of membership is implied or required on ANY level. So said the court, so made it the law of our land.

seattle needs to go GOVERMENT FREE

Originally posted by HauntWok
[Sorry you think I'm being an ass in this thread, it's more my intention to show how utterly insane it is to think that guns actually make a country safer in any way. Especially seeing as how most gun related deaths are by those that own a gun.

WOW!!!

Are you able to dress yourself, or does that require help?

The statement above has been demonstrably proven FALSE in study after study - on BOTH sides of the issue - with gun control leading to INCREASES in violent crime and more gun ownership leading to DECLINES in violent crime. You are either being willfully ignorant, deliberately obtuse or are suffering from a severe mental incapacitation.

Let's break this down, because in one sense, you are correct. Let me demonstrate - "most gun related deaths are by those that own a gun". The same as saying "most drownings occur in water" or "most automobile accidents are committed by people who own cars". Intelligent people recognize this as a "Circular Argument" fallacy. Hint: Fallacies immediately negate the argument altogether.

CDC Study Commissioned by Obama

Start with the link above, read it, then weep. This is the very study that Obama commissioned with his executive order that proved exactly the opposite of what Obama intended - increases in gun ownership SAVE LIVES and REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME!

Beyond that, you can find dozens of other statistically valid and reliable studies that demonstrate the same point!

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

Don't worry, many in that "1/3 of the nation", are just waiting for the second american revolution so that they can mow down their fellow countrymen with impunity in the name of "freedom".

I read their posts every day, every time they dust off the Declaration of Independence and parade it out as their own personal licence to kill their fellow Americans, every time they make thinly veiled threats about our elected officials, every time they only post half of the 2nd Amendment and completely ignore the other half as if it doesn't exist, they push me more and more to the anti gun side of this issue.

The reasons for their want of bloodshed in the streets vary, but each and every one of them wants to take a human life. Each and every one of them are just waiting for the day they can unload a hail of bullets into whatever "enemy" they can imagine. Be it a criminal who is attempting to mug them, or a government employee trying to do his job. Each and every gun rights advocate is just waiting impatiently for the day they can watch the light fade from someone's eyes as their target takes their final breath.

And that's why I can't be pro gun. I simply cannot be on the side with homicidal maniacs feverishly building up their courage with the help of whatever hand cannon they can get their hands on, until the "day of reckoning" comes in their minds, and they take to the streets blowing away "the evil liberals, commies, socialists, (or whatever portion of the population they deeply hate with every fibre of their being)" and somehow feeling justified in doing so.

So I applaud the mayor, for asking businesses to go gun free. He's not passing a law, he's making a plea to sanity.

If they are gun-toting hill-billies, then it's probably because of all the horrendous crimes they read about and isn't reported by mainstream news media:

Woman used blow-torch to kill 12-year old boy
clashdaily.com...

15-year girl shot dead days within her birthday as a thrill-killing
topconservativenews.com...

Australian killed in thrill killing
www.foxnews.com...

33-year old mother (Kelly Hunnewell) of five killed in robbery gone wrong
www.wistv.com...

Mutilation and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
www.knoxnews.com...

Basketball player killed
articles.latimes.com...

With stories like these, is it any wonder that people feel there is no other way to defend themselves except