Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 2012 Election Thread on Gun Rights

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    2012 Election Thread on Gun Rights

    Hopefully we can use this thread to condense down our political discussions for this years elections.

    First is on topic, Rob McKenna on gun rights

    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I don't think he really meant the phrase "that responsible people" can own guns because this phrase puts the burden on the gun owner or wanna be owner.

    And talking about cases already decided is not going on on a limb but I guess he is just highlighting his history.
    If I had only 1min to talk, I would be talking about future issues beyond those of mental health issues (not on a limb there) but to the basics: assault weapons bans being wrong for one. This question is a good one to gauge pro-gun view points...if one says no to these laws being unlawful then he is not really the pro-gun candidate as he thinks he is.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't think he really meant the phrase "that responsible people" can own guns because this phrase puts the burden on the gun owner or wanna be owner.

    And talking about cases already decided is not going on on a limb but I guess he is just highlighting his history.
    If I had only 1min to talk, I would be talking about future issues beyond those of mental health issues (not on a limb there) but to the basics: assault weapons bans being wrong for one. This question is a good one to gauge pro-gun view points...if one says no to these laws being unlawful then he is not really the pro-gun candidate as he thinks he is.
    Commenting from CT shows how out of touch you are with WA, your points are off base.

    Listen to the definition of 'responsible people' and what Rob defines is non-felons and those with out voluntary mental adjudication. Which is what Washington law confirms. It is a simple minimum and fairly liberal standard applied to Washington's Constitution.

    We have no assault weapons ban in Washington so your point is again baseless and shows that you should refrain from adding comments that you are ignorant of as an observer from 3000 miles away.

    Ugh
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    What I have seen of McKenna would make me think he is a bit too mainstream Republician for my tastes, but I have not see anything (so far) that would make me think he is an anti.

    If I had 1 minute with him, I would first ask about a repeal (or at least modification of) .270 or at least .270(1) and .050(2), correcting the legal age to carry to 18, recognizing all other states permits/licenses...that would be the start. Or basically, If it originated in 1994, it be repealed..get rid of the last vestages of Lowry and his gang.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Commenting from CT shows how out of touch you are with WA, your points are off base.

    Listen to the definition of 'responsible people' and what Rob defines is non-felons and those with out voluntary mental adjudication. Which is what Washington law confirms. It is a simple minimum and fairly liberal standard applied to Washington's Constitution.

    We have no assault weapons ban in Washington so your point is again baseless and shows that you should refrain from adding comments that you are ignorant of as an observer from 3000 miles away.

    Ugh
    Listen again...and he talked about federal cases he was involved with Heller, McDonald (I think one of these was 3000 miles away, right?).... so I am not so ignorant, am I. Why not get involved with other federal cases involving assault weapons bans.

    And talking about felons and crazy people? Wow, really going out on a limb there ...

    Anyone can file an intervenor brief or "friend of the court" or otherwise enter a supporting brief if allowed by a federal judge.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-17-2012 at 05:18 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    What I have seen of McKenna would make me think he is a bit too mainstream Republician for my tastes, but I have not see anything (so far) that would make me think he is an anti.

    If I had 1 minute with him, I would first ask about a repeal (or at least modification of) .270 or at least .270(1) and .050(2), correcting the legal age to carry to 18, recognizing all other states permits/licenses...that would be the start. Or basically, If it originated in 1994, it be repealed..get rid of the last vestages of Lowry and his gang.
    I have spoken to him. If the house/senate was of the correct make-up then it would be possible and he would favor.

    He is very mainstream, but hey we haven't had a R governor in 30 years in this state.
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    What I have seen of McKenna would make me think he is a bit too mainstream Republician for my tastes, but I have not see anything (so far) that would make me think he is an anti.

    If I had 1 minute with him, I would first ask about a repeal (or at least modification of) .270 or at least .270(1) and .050(2), correcting the legal age to carry to 18, recognizing all other states permits/licenses...that would be the start. Or basically, If it originated in 1994, it be repealed..get rid of the last vestages of Lowry and his gang.
    RCW 26.04.050
    Who may solemnize.


    *** CHANGE IN 2012 *** (SEE 6239-S.SL) ***

    The following named officers and persons, active or retired, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages, to wit: Justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts, supreme court commissioners, court of appeals commissioners, superior court commissioners, any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination, and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction as defined in RCW 3.02.010.


    ????

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    RCW 26.04.050
    Who may solemnize.


    *** CHANGE IN 2012 *** (SEE 6239-S.SL) ***

    The following named officers and persons, active or retired, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages, to wit: Justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts, supreme court commissioners, court of appeals commissioners, superior court commissioners, any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination, and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction as defined in RCW 3.02.010.


    ????
    You are, once again, showing your ignorance of the laws of the state of WA. Try starting with RCW 9.41.270 and going from there.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    You are, once again, showing your ignorance of the laws of the state of WA. Try starting with RCW 9.41.270 and going from there.
    Hardly ignorance ... more like bad citation ... you should learn your manners

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    He is just trolling to increase post count... Ignore him and continue on...

    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: ct
    Posts: 773
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    He is pro gun with "limitations". Just my feeling. He isn't a rights person by any means though.

    Hadian seems more pro gun and more pro rights, I like his stance on 9th and 10th amendments. I don't like his bringing his God into politics. Feel he is better than McKenna though.

    Justice Sanders, is pro rights across the board and willing to stick his neck on the line to stand up for liberty he is definitely getting my vote.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Seattle here. I can't freaking stand McGinn. I haven't come across any alternative.

    Can anyone link me up on some potential replacements?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    He is pro gun with "limitations". Just my feeling. He isn't a rights person by any means though.

    Hadian seems more pro gun and more pro rights, I like his stance on 9th and 10th amendments. I don't like his bringing his God into politics. Feel he is better than McKenna though.

    Justice Sanders, is pro rights across the board and willing to stick his neck on the line to stand up for liberty he is definitely getting my vote.
    Also not a fan of the grandiose overtones of religion in the Hadian campaign. Hadian says alot of the right things, however, he does so lacking any significant experience.

    It has been a constant priority throughout Shahram’s life to be a servant leader in his community. His unique background includes experience as a pastor, police officer, teacher, coach, and small business owner. An advocate for personal responsibility, Shahram has brought together local organizations and individuals to meet needs within the community. Furthermore, he was a leader in the fight to get two new laws passed in Snohomish County to toughen lewd behavior laws and combat prostitution. In 2010, Hadian was a candidate for WA State Representative, garnering key endorsements and support within Snohomish County. Hadian currently travels around the nation speaking with his company, The TIL Project.
    He was a police officer with Redmond for a short time. However, there is little to no information on what he did there. (Patrol officer only?) Nor is there any explanation as to his departure from Redmond. His campaign has not responded to inquiries. Perhaps he doesn't see himself as a major candidate since he won't answer the questions regarding Redmond.

    Hadian has made no official statements regarding Article I Section 24 or the 2nd Amendment. He continues to paint his campaign with vague language and courageous leadership. Mostly referring to his religious viewpoints and not liberty per se.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Throw ya a bone here

    http://news.yahoo.com/star-pro-obama...182157898.html

    More fodder for you folks who are either pro-obama (shame on you!) or pro-romney

    Funny story though ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Also not a fan of the grandiose overtones of religion in the Hadian campaign. Hadian says alot of the right things, however, he does so lacking any significant experience.



    He was a police officer with Redmond for a short time. However, there is little to no information on what he did there. (Patrol officer only?) Nor is there any explanation as to his departure from Redmond. His campaign has not responded to inquiries. Perhaps he doesn't see himself as a major candidate since he won't answer the questions regarding Redmond.

    Hadian has made no official statements regarding Article I Section 24 or the 2nd Amendment. He continues to paint his campaign with vague language and courageous leadership. Mostly referring to his religious viewpoints and not liberty per se.
    Thanks for the info. Sigh definitely not liberty minded either on some issues.

    Looks like I'll have to write in a Constitutional minded person.

    Crack down on lewd behavior? Give me a break. When will politicians learn it only gets worse the more you "crack down".

    On the thought of "experience", I have no problem with lack of experience and think inexperienced politicians are a better representative. Than those who have learned to compromise and play the game.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-18-2012 at 08:34 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Thanks for the info. Sigh definitely not liberty minded either on some issues.

    Looks like I'll have to write in a Constitutional minded person.

    Crack down on lewd behavior? Give me a break. When will politicians learn it only gets worse the more you "crack down".

    On the thought of "experience", I have no problem with lack of experience and think inexperienced politicians are a better representative. Than those who have learned to compromise and play the game.
    Neither do I. It is just one factor to consider. I definitely wouldn't elect a 18yo for Governor just because they were student body president and had good ideas. Neither did our founders.
    Live Free or Die!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    As Seattle and the state weigh tighter gun control measures the King County Sheriff is locked and loaded. He's ready to take the gun control debate to the firing range.

    It's an upcoming campaign event called, "Shootin' With the Sheriff," and some say the timing couldn't be worse.

    http://www.king5.com/home/Go-shootin-with-King-County-Sheriff-162975326.html
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Neither do I. It is just one factor to consider. I definitely wouldn't elect a 18yo for Governor just because they were student body president and had good ideas. Neither did our founders.
    Good point, it seems some of our 18 year olds have more common sense than many of these politicians.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    As of there would ever be a right time with these people. :rolls eyes:
    Sigh

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •