• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle Buyback guns being melted into "Peace Bricks"

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
So how about a OC meet at the locale when the bricks are laid to rest? Just to pay our respects to the demise of firearms.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Truly absurd. It's like McGinn is in his own universe.

What's really crazy is that next year the anarchists will probably hurl these "peace bricks" through store windows, at cars or at police.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
We should get a law passed requiring all curios and relics in the possession of local governments be disposed of by auction......or all guns for that matter

No we should NOT pass anymore laws.

The people turned them in, they are foolish. Now the guns are possessed by the state, let them do what they may. Electing different politicians is the correct answer. A reduction in certain firearms only adds value to collectors.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
No we should NOT pass anymore laws.

The people turned them in, they are foolish. Now the guns are possessed by the state, let them do what they may. Electing different politicians is the correct answer. A reduction in certain firearms only adds value to collectors.

it effects the taxpayers as a whole, it means the city paid money for potentially valuable assets and then decided to sit on them and then destroy them. the city should have an obligation to be good stewards of the taxpayer's money, and if they won't do it themselves, then make 'em do it...
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
it effects the taxpayers as a whole, it means the city paid money for potentially valuable assets and then decided to sit on them and then destroy them. the city should have an obligation to be good stewards of the taxpayer's money, and if they won't do it themselves, then make 'em do it...

No the city did not pay for them, Amazon and other contributor's paid for them with gift cards. No the city has no obligation to be good stewards of the taxpayer's money, the politicians do and they can be unelected. Remember, the firearms were voluntarily given up... shame on the owners (personal responsibility). Enough with the statist mentality "there ought to be a law", stop it is shameful that we can't accept the personal choices of others and the consequences of those choices.

'Make (ing) 'em do it' can only be enforced by physical threat (i.e. citation, arrest, jail, etc), we have enough state mandated violence without adding another victimless crime to the books.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
No the city did not pay for them, Amazon and other contributor's paid for them with gift cards. No the city has no obligation to be good stewards of the taxpayer's money, the politicians do and they can be unelected. Remember, the firearms were voluntarily given up... shame on the owners (personal responsibility). Enough with the statist mentality "there ought to be a law", stop it is shameful that we can't accept the personal choices of others and the consequences of those choices.

'Make (ing) 'em do it' can only be enforced by physical threat (i.e. citation, arrest, jail, etc), we have enough state mandated violence without adding another victimless crime to the books.

Yes, in this regard I am very statist, the State has authority over a municipality, otherwise there would be no lawful carry in Seattle. The city is subserviant to the state. Cities have never had powers above that of the state. Washington is a sovereign, Seattle is not.

There would be no violence nessecary.... my proposal would say Seattle can opt to melt them anyway... and be fined by the state, and if they don't pay... the state will stop providing grants to the city, for busses, for mental health, for anything... actually.

The state mandates the city accept state licenses, accept state law, provide state mandated services, collect sales tax.... etc etc etc in addition to firearm preemption.

this is hardly a revolutionary idea.

I think the city should not be running this program, and if they do..... they can pay a fixed fee per gun destroyed.... we'll say.... 100 bucks per..... and that money should go to Fish and Game Department, or the DNR in order to maintain lands suitable for hunting and to provide money for hunters ed programs....

lets see 700x100 = 700,000 dollars to support outdoor recreation....
I think seattle will opt to auction rather then cut a check for the higher half of a million.

however, being a history buff, I only want to limit meltings of C&Rs.
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Yes, in this regard I am very statist, the State has authority over a municipality, otherwise there would be no lawful carry in Seattle. The city is subserviant to the state. Cities have never had powers above that of the state. Washington is a sovereign, Seattle is not.

There would be no violence nessecary.... my proposal would say Seattle can opt to melt them anyway... and be fined by the state, and if they don't pay... the state will stop providing grants to the city, for busses, for mental health, for anything... actually.

The state mandates the city accept state licenses, accept state law, provide state mandated services, collect sales tax.... etc etc etc in addition to firearm preemption.

this is hardly a revolutionary idea.

I think the city should not be running this program, and if they do..... they can pay a fixed fee per gun destroyed.... we'll say.... 100 bucks per..... and that money should go to Fish and Game Department, or the DNR in order to maintain lands suitable for hunting and to provide money for hunters ed programs....

lets see 700x100 = 700,000 dollars to support outdoor recreation....
I think seattle will opt to auction rather then cut a check for the higher half of a million.

however, being a history buff, I only want to limit meltings of C&Rs.

You talk about power the state has over a municipality. Yet, there is no state constitutional issue here, only one of policy. Your solution is to then create an additional law... it is amazing how you will take a position on an item and continue to bury yourself with nonsense.....

Ideas like this foster the notion that the state should get more involved in the lives/municipalities of the citizens and not less involved.... "We ought to pass a law..."
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
You talk about power the state has over a municipality. Yet, there is no state constitutional issue here, only one of policy. Your solution is to then create an additional law... it is amazing how you will take a position on an item and continue to bury yourself with nonsense.....

Ideas like this foster the notion that the state should get more involved in the lives/municipalities of the citizens and not less involved.... "We ought to pass a law..."

so what's the constitutional issue over a city buying a helicopter? only a few weeks ago you were adamant that city authorities should have no right to operate a helicopter in accordance with FAA guidelines....

What was the constitutional issue over guns in Seattle parks? it was simply a trespass policy and not a law... so no constitutional issue at all? except it was, because the legislature took away the City's right to regulate firearms policy.

The Constitution (both state and federal) are not, and never were, intended to cover every single issue that might pop up.... if it were they wouldn't even bother to establish a legislative branch. how many laws existing trace back to an issue referenced in the constitution? very few....

I don't think it is nonsense, the state already has done what i'm proposing, in 1994 they made a one time requirement for cities destroying guns to pay fees to fund a range fund established to provide grants for safety improvements in local ranges....

I'm only proposing this idea be reimposed and made permanent. The city has no business destroying firearms. they have no business destroying history. and there is no constitutional right of city officials to destroy a gun. it's a "right" established by the legislature through choosing not to regulate. and what they giveth, they can take away. I absolutely support the notion that the state should be involved in Municipalities. look what happens in Illinois and New York when individual municipalities are allowed to run wild and make their own rules.
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
so what's the constitutional issue over a city buying a helicopter? only a few weeks ago you were adamant that city authorities should have no right to operate a helicopter in accordance with FAA guidelines.... CITE, where I made a constitutional argument....

What was the constitutional issue over guns in Seattle parks? it was simply a trespass policy and not a law... so no constitutional issue at all? except it was, because the legislature took away the City's right to regulate firearms policy. Article 1 Section 24.....duh

The Constitution (both state and federal) are not, and never were, intended to cover every single issue that might pop up.... if it were they wouldn't even bother to establish a legislative branch. how many laws existing trace back to an issue referenced in the constitution? very few... Straw man argument...

I don't think it is nonsense, the state already has done what i'm proposing, in 1994 they made a one time requirement for cities destroying guns to pay fees to fund a range fund established to provide grants for safety improvements in local ranges....Because it was done before it must be ok, nonsense....

I'm only proposing this idea be reimposed and made permanent. The city has no business destroying firearms. they have no business destroying history. and there is no constitutional right of city officials to destroy a gun. it's a "right" established by the legislature through choosing not to regulate. and what they giveth, they can take away. I absolutely support the notion that the state should be involved in Municipalities. look what happens in Illinois and New York when individual municipalities are allowed to run wild and make their own rules.

Ugh
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Truly absurd. It's like McGinn is in his own universe.

What's really crazy is that next year the anarchists will probably hurl these "peace bricks" through store windows, at cars or at police.

Not anarchists, criminals......;)

Yes, in this regard I am very statist, the State has authority over a municipality, otherwise there would be no lawful carry in Seattle. The city is subserviant to the state. Cities have never had powers above that of the state. Washington is a sovereign, Seattle is not.

There would be no violence nessecary.... my proposal would say Seattle can opt to melt them anyway... and be fined by the state, and if they don't pay... the state will stop providing grants to the city, for busses, for mental health, for anything... actually.

The state mandates the city accept state licenses, accept state law, provide state mandated services, collect sales tax.... etc etc etc in addition to firearm preemption.

this is hardly a revolutionary idea.

I think the city should not be running this program, and if they do..... they can pay a fixed fee per gun destroyed.... we'll say.... 100 bucks per..... and that money should go to Fish and Game Department, or the DNR in order to maintain lands suitable for hunting and to provide money for hunters ed programs....

lets see 700x100 = 700,000 dollars to support outdoor recreation....
I think seattle will opt to auction rather then cut a check for the higher half of a million.

however, being a history buff, I only want to limit meltings of C&Rs.

Mis-use of the word statist, yes you are a statist, but statism/statist has little to do with the operation of a state.....statist, statism is an ideology of putting state over individual rights....just like socialism/socialist has nothing to do with being social.

You talk about power the state has over a municipality. Yet, there is no state constitutional issue here, only one of policy. Your solution is to then create an additional law... it is amazing how you will take a position on an item and continue to bury yourself with nonsense.....

Ideas like this foster the notion that the state should get more involved in the lives/municipalities of the citizens and not less involved.... "We ought to pass a law..."


You read my Op-Ed....:cool:
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Not anarchists, criminals......;)



Mis-use of the word statist, yes you are a statist, but statism/statist has little to do with the operation of a state.....statist, statism is an ideology of putting state over individual rights....just like socialism/socialist has nothing to do with being social.




You read my Op-Ed....:cool:

Despite the fact that apparently I despise individual rights (in addition to wanting to oppress poor mayor mike mcginn)

I would be very interested in reading this op-ed if you have a link to it....
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Despite the fact that apparently I despise individual rights (in addition to wanting to oppress poor mayor mike mcginn)

I would be very interested in reading this op-ed if you have a link to it....

I know you meant well, but more laws as Nick pointed out won't solve it. What will help is the dismantling of laws (malum prohibitum ones).

It's on my face might be on the Libertarian Website soon.


There OughtTo Be A Law



The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
Ludwig von Mises


How true this is. Every time someone says “There ought to be a law” I cringe. Most who say this are well intentioned but they do not know what they are asking for. They are asking us to grant the government more power to kill us, to beat us to imprison us, to thwart yet another liberty and in doing so thwart the growth and evolution of human society.


They are asking for complete obedience to a state and its agents of violence and coercion no matter how trivial the matter. You may look both ways and see no traffic, cross the street in the middle of the block doing so safely. Yet if a costumed agent of the state sees this he now has authority to stop you, infringing upon your fundamental right to be left alone. If you decide to resist this ridiculous intrusion into your life you may be arrested, beat, tazed, killed, imprisoned, you may lose your livelihood, your family, your friends. Why? Because someone said “There ought to be a law”.


Some may claim Iam exaggerating or being over-hyperbolic, but am I? Who wants to test that theory out? I purposefully picked an innocuous example to explore the ultimate result of not obeying, all we have to do is look the current state of things to see how the end results of monopolizing the use of force to the state. All because someone said “There ought to be a law”.


They have created a myriad of mala prohibitum laws that are against our common law origins and contrary to freedom. They fight a war against “drugs”,which is not really a war against drugs -- it is a war on its citizens. The violence in our streets from government sanctioned thugs and from those who engage in a market that is forced underground, the theft of our property in the form of taxes to fight this war and to cage our fellow humans for ignoring prohibition, is drastically worse than the consequences of a small percentage of our population “getting high”. All because someone said “There ought to be a law”.


They created myriads of licensing schemes, to drive, to operate a business, to get married, to hold a public meeting, to engage in trade, to use your property that you bought with your hard earned dollars, to communicate, etc. I am sure many of these had good intentions yet the overall cost to society is again more harmful than the free exercise of your liberties, and has put the government in a position of authority and telling you how to live your life, and if you don't comply, we know what the end result is. All because someone said “There ought to be a law”.


They immorally tax our wages, distort our money, interfere with free markets, create laws you can be guilty of breaking no matter what, as shown in the so called anti trust laws; charge too much -- gouging, charge the same of others -- collusion, charge less -- predatory pricing. All because someone said “There ought to be a law”.


They invade our privacy; they infringe upon our right to bear arms and our right to free speech; they coerce or threaten us into incriminating ourselves.They make us pay to “quarter” these enforcers. They overstep the boundaries of protecting individual rights and arbitrating disputes and keeping us safe from invasion. There ought to be a law...........
 
Last edited:

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/cf598b23d25e44bfbe7d57975ee17774/WA--Seattle-Gun-Buyback

SEATTLE — The Seattle Police Department collected more than 700 guns during a buyback in January, and now city officials have a plan for what to do with them.
Mayor Mike McGinn is expected to announce Tuesday that they'll be melted into bricks carrying messages of peace, and the bricks will be placed around the city.

Placed around the city so they are handy for the next anarchist protest @holes to throw through the windows of those evil businesses.
 
Top