golddigger14s
Activist Member
Someones irrational fear of an inanimate object is best left to the licensed psychologists that can give them proper counseling.
-
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.
-
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.
HBs I-591 & I-594 Judiciary Hearing Jan 28th 130pm (Olympia)
- Thread starter Bill Starks
- Start date
So, you want to "normalize" OC?
Wearing shoes is "normal".
So if you ask me to take off my shoes in your house, and I tell you to "%$#@& shove it", will you welcome me in again?
Just sayin'...
OK
Wearing shoes is "normal".
So if you ask me to take off my shoes in your house, and I tell you to "%$#@& shove it", will you welcome me in again?
Just sayin'...
OK
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Don't quite get what you are saying can you clarify?
Wearing shoes into someones private house doesn't equate to a public building.
Just thinkin' that the Chairs (hosts) have made a request. A person's choice to honor or deny that request is a direct reflection of a person's manners. Contrary to popular belief, manners matter.
Maybe we'll get better results with a muzzle sweeping LGOC, but I doubt it.
OK
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Actually, they are in OUR house -- NOT theirs.
Right. Now, relax Dave. Think for a minute. Imma kick dirt clods on YOUR carpet...
Or, since we're room-mates we can work with each other, respectfully...
I believe an armed society can be a polite society. Stop trying to prove me wrong.
OK
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Any argument that can be made for not OCing at the capital can be made against OC in general. OC activism at parks, metro, city councils, restaurants, etc will only serve to alienate liberals and anti-gun RHINO FUDs and thus hasten WA's decent into Californiahood.
What the pro-gun organizers might want to do, to counteract the so called victims who are political pawns, is to find numerous victims of crimes who used a firearm to save their own life (or the life of a loved one). In other words, have an equivalent non-rational (emotional based) argument to counteract the non-rational anti-gun argument.
Last edited:
golddigger14s
Activist Member
From TOS:
"I RSVP'd to the WAGR page using their link about attending the hearings this week. Their email states to arrive by 12:30.
The hearings start at 1:30. On the 28th and 29th.
You and I both know that the reason they are advising people to arrive by 12:30 is so that they can pack the chamber with pro-594 people and sign up the pro-594 people to speak.
They are attempting to nudge out the pro-gun people by being early and packing the house.
I will be arriving between 12-12:15. I suggest anyone appearing do the same.
Make sure to share this with any pro gun sites you know including Facebook groups.
Hearing schedule:
1/28/14 http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/committees/judi/Pages/Agendas.aspx?aid=19771
1/29/14 http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/committees/law/Pages/Agendas.aspx?aid=19718"
_________________
"I RSVP'd to the WAGR page using their link about attending the hearings this week. Their email states to arrive by 12:30.
The hearings start at 1:30. On the 28th and 29th.
You and I both know that the reason they are advising people to arrive by 12:30 is so that they can pack the chamber with pro-594 people and sign up the pro-594 people to speak.
They are attempting to nudge out the pro-gun people by being early and packing the house.
I will be arriving between 12-12:15. I suggest anyone appearing do the same.
Make sure to share this with any pro gun sites you know including Facebook groups.
Hearing schedule:
1/28/14 http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/committees/judi/Pages/Agendas.aspx?aid=19771
1/29/14 http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/committees/law/Pages/Agendas.aspx?aid=19718"
_________________
I'm not arguing against OC. I'm trying to make a point about discretion and manners. Anyone that thinks this hearing is a great place to stick an AR in people's faces is, IMO, not playing with a full deck.
Let's try another analogy about "appropriateness". I'll happily wash up, and even put on clean clothes for dinner. I'm not going to rent a tuxedo to go to McDonald's. A clean shirt will do.
"But I have a :cuss::cuss: RIGHTto wear a tuxedo!!" It doesn't mean I should.
Personally, for this I'd wear my EDC, cause that's what I usually carry. It'll probably be partially covered by my jacket, cause that's what it usually does... But that's just me. I rarely make a conscious effort to piss people off - even here!
Good thinkin'!
OK
Last edited:
Grim_Night
Regular Member
I have stayed out of this discussion because it seems to be going downhill fairly fast...
I see 2 sides to the issue... Side #1 says "don't OC because it will scare people and we don't want that." While side #2 says "I'm going to OC because it's my right to do so and screw you all that say not to OC!"
I can understand both sides and maybe there is a middle ground here. Don't OC long guns. OC what you normally OC as you go about your normal every day lives. I seriously doubt that there is anybody here that walks out their front door every "morning" with a rifle or shotgun strapped to their backs. But I know for a fact that many, if not all of the people here do in fact OC a handgun at least on their hip in a holster.
We want to show people that there is not a damn thing wrong with lawfully carrying a firearm in every day life. Washington state courts have ruled flat out that even though some people may be shocked at seeing another with an openly exposed firearm, OC in and of itself does not WARRENT alarm. So why not show the general public that the courts are right in that ruling. A little common sense is needed here. We are trying to show people what is and should be NORMAL, and OC of a long gun in every day life is NOT normal. We are constantly using the example that police OC all the time. But when was the last time anyone witnessed any LEO OC a long gun while going about their every day business? They only have a long gun when they are needed.
To the argument that there may/will be some people at the "hearing" that have been traumatized due to some incident in the past related to firearms, I say TOUGH. How is it our fault?? All WE have done and all WE have ever wanted to do is preserve and protect OUR right to protect ourselves because WE know that the government can't/won't do it at the time and place when WE most need it. WE want the right to purchase "insurance" and use that "insurance" when we may need it most and not have the government interfere with that right. And by OCing, we are showing which side of the fence we are standing. By CCing, we are showing nothing at all. By OCing, we are showing that WE are the ones that are armed, and WE are the ones fighting for our rights. By CCing, we are hiding.
As to people that could testify to the fact that firearms and the lawful possession of them has saved lives, I would love to stand up and speak out, but my time has already been claimed for the 28th. I'm helping to stand up for our rights in a slightly different way. I'm going to stand by Jimmy at Bates tech on that day as we go before the board of trustees for Bates tech and tell them about the laws of this state.
Whatever happens, I do wish everyone luck that attends at the capital on the 28th. My heart goes with you all.
I see 2 sides to the issue... Side #1 says "don't OC because it will scare people and we don't want that." While side #2 says "I'm going to OC because it's my right to do so and screw you all that say not to OC!"
I can understand both sides and maybe there is a middle ground here. Don't OC long guns. OC what you normally OC as you go about your normal every day lives. I seriously doubt that there is anybody here that walks out their front door every "morning" with a rifle or shotgun strapped to their backs. But I know for a fact that many, if not all of the people here do in fact OC a handgun at least on their hip in a holster.
We want to show people that there is not a damn thing wrong with lawfully carrying a firearm in every day life. Washington state courts have ruled flat out that even though some people may be shocked at seeing another with an openly exposed firearm, OC in and of itself does not WARRENT alarm. So why not show the general public that the courts are right in that ruling. A little common sense is needed here. We are trying to show people what is and should be NORMAL, and OC of a long gun in every day life is NOT normal. We are constantly using the example that police OC all the time. But when was the last time anyone witnessed any LEO OC a long gun while going about their every day business? They only have a long gun when they are needed.
To the argument that there may/will be some people at the "hearing" that have been traumatized due to some incident in the past related to firearms, I say TOUGH. How is it our fault?? All WE have done and all WE have ever wanted to do is preserve and protect OUR right to protect ourselves because WE know that the government can't/won't do it at the time and place when WE most need it. WE want the right to purchase "insurance" and use that "insurance" when we may need it most and not have the government interfere with that right. And by OCing, we are showing which side of the fence we are standing. By CCing, we are showing nothing at all. By OCing, we are showing that WE are the ones that are armed, and WE are the ones fighting for our rights. By CCing, we are hiding.
As to people that could testify to the fact that firearms and the lawful possession of them has saved lives, I would love to stand up and speak out, but my time has already been claimed for the 28th. I'm helping to stand up for our rights in a slightly different way. I'm going to stand by Jimmy at Bates tech on that day as we go before the board of trustees for Bates tech and tell them about the laws of this state.
Whatever happens, I do wish everyone luck that attends at the capital on the 28th. My heart goes with you all.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Again it's not their house. If you think that way you are already a slave.
If I go which I probably can't make it. I will OC my properly holstered pistol which I do everyday and it's my normal way of carry.
It has nothing to do with manners on our part. It does on their part being rude and using excuses to have people not exercise their rights.
PS referring to exercising a right as kicking dirt clods is a horrible misplaced analogy.
Last edited:
Look the way they win is to show that people were hurt with guns that were purchased without a background check.
Look at who signs up first, who are going to be the victims that set this stage and the foundation of their argument.
Google their names, find out the details of their stories before they speak.
Discredit them if they have a criminal past and the shooting happened because of the criminal history/ activity.
They weren't shot because of how the gun was purchased, but because they were associated with criminal activity.
You have to discredit the witness to win your argument.
This is just one way to attack them.
Can you think of more?
Look at who signs up first, who are going to be the victims that set this stage and the foundation of their argument.
Google their names, find out the details of their stories before they speak.
Discredit them if they have a criminal past and the shooting happened because of the criminal history/ activity.
They weren't shot because of how the gun was purchased, but because they were associated with criminal activity.
You have to discredit the witness to win your argument.
This is just one way to attack them.
Can you think of more?
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
It is my opine that they people who have asked for "no open carry" are of the mindset that we will be LGOC. The EDC weapons that I have seen on OCDO People, for the most part, are discrete. I do believe that LGOC while acceptable, is not "normal" yet and would appear provocative. I do believe in "easing in the door" but you cannot normalize Open Carry by hiding your weapon.
Also you need to have a group of smart guys follow the media everywhere they go on campus. If they stick there mic in a pro guns
persons face and ask a question, blurt out a great answer or great talking point before the guy can answer emotional.
This will give the guy answering the question a better option, and help us control the talking points and positive message we need to
put out there.
Don't let the media get a stupid sound bite they can use against us because they will.
All so they will try and use the shooting in the Maryland mall to relate to this.
Be ready with these facts.
1. Some young adults haven't been educated in school to handle interpersonal relationship problems which might have triggered the targeting of the 2 workers in the mall store.
I saw a report of a black family man who knew the shooter, say he had just been promoted at work, maybe this was the store he was working at and the 2 people he shot were difficult personality types and the shooter didn't know how to deal with the stress this situration cause.
This is just a shot in the dark, because I don't have all the facts, but I don't see schools teaching interpersonal problem solving to this degree, am I wrong.
I'm going to follow this up with the causes of murder from the Uniform crime reports if anyone hasn't seen that.
It will make an excellent defense against background check laws, I think or at least help.
persons face and ask a question, blurt out a great answer or great talking point before the guy can answer emotional.
This will give the guy answering the question a better option, and help us control the talking points and positive message we need to
put out there.
Don't let the media get a stupid sound bite they can use against us because they will.
All so they will try and use the shooting in the Maryland mall to relate to this.
Be ready with these facts.
1. Some young adults haven't been educated in school to handle interpersonal relationship problems which might have triggered the targeting of the 2 workers in the mall store.
I saw a report of a black family man who knew the shooter, say he had just been promoted at work, maybe this was the store he was working at and the 2 people he shot were difficult personality types and the shooter didn't know how to deal with the stress this situration cause.
This is just a shot in the dark, because I don't have all the facts, but I don't see schools teaching interpersonal problem solving to this degree, am I wrong.
I'm going to follow this up with the causes of murder from the Uniform crime reports if anyone hasn't seen that.
It will make an excellent defense against background check laws, I think or at least help.
Here's the table from the fbi. that sheds light on the causes of murder.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-12
It is my contention that a lot of the gun violence is caused by impulse behavior from young adults, that why car insurance goes down after age 25, impulse control goes up.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-12
It is my contention that a lot of the gun violence is caused by impulse behavior from young adults, that why car insurance goes down after age 25, impulse control goes up.
Last edited:
I like to look at things from all angle's.
So lets make a deal, deal.
We give them background checks with no registry, an assault rifle registry, and a one day training class with all cpl's.
They give us open carry is 100% legal written into the law, assault and short barrel rifles ok by law, and due process for all gun confiscations.
Now the one day training class works in our favor because some states require it for resaprosity.
Did I leave anything important out.
So lets make a deal, deal.
We give them background checks with no registry, an assault rifle registry, and a one day training class with all cpl's.
They give us open carry is 100% legal written into the law, assault and short barrel rifles ok by law, and due process for all gun confiscations.
Now the one day training class works in our favor because some states require it for resaprosity.
Did I leave anything important out.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
With friends like you, who needs Diane Feinstein.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Made me laugh.
The problem with the all around background check is that all the guns would have to be registered.
Then that database costs money to implement and operate. So, all those who want the "universal background check," should have to pay ALL the costs out of their own pockets and then be the only ones subject to this law.
golddigger14s
Activist Member
Who in WA has an assault rifle? Only the military has those. I own a personal defense/hunting rifle, and according to the media the police carry "patrol rifles". JS if you have have an assault rifle, it would be best if you moved to CT.
OC can't be written into law, laws only tell us what we CAN'T do.
Also to some of the other postings, where did long rifle come into the conversation? This is not an outdoor rally, and this is a handgun OC site. Any discussion on whether to OC, or CC should be limited to handguns.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
There are many lawfully owned machine guns in civilian hands, within WA.
They were grandfathered in, but ownership cannot be transferred.
That's how bans start.
1) Registry
2) Ban with grandfathering
3) Ban transfers
= anti-gunners wet dream (liberal and conservative alike)