Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: An open letter to Greg Nickels

  1. #1
    Regular Member PatriotNvestor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Pierce County, WA

    An open letter to Greg Nickels

    Greg Nickels posted this statement on his facebook page on 10/22..

    I felt obliged to respond..
    you can see my original post here

    here is the text

    From Owen Welling, Gun Rights across America, Washington State Coordinator

    I find a lot of troubling opinions in you post about I594... but underlying it all is a lack of respect for an individualís right to choose when entering into voluntary relationships, including your propensity to bully others because your views happen to share a "Majority" of public opinion. You would not come to my house and extort my compliant behavior with a gun in your hand, but you feel perfectly justified in asking law enforcement officers to do so because you and a whole bunch of people agree that you don't like what or how I choose to live my life. The simple fact is, I have not infringed or inhibited your life, choices or access in any way...

    We in the firearms community are VERY aware that actions brings consequences.. Especially in self-defense... it is what is so galling when people expose their gun phobias...

    IF I were to draw my weapon and fire in self-defense, I know that I would be subject to a four part test on the basis of a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER...

    Did that danger present the following?

    (A) the Ability to harm me

    (O) was the Opportunity presented to cause me harm

    (J) was I in Jeopardy? ( The clear and present danger)

    (P) had I taken reasonable measures to Preclude the danger (or de-escalate)?

    When you start to talk about preventative measures, as soon as you leave the realm of voluntary solutions and impose regulations (and felony penalties) for violations, you have taken aggressive, PREEMPTIVE actions without satisfying these criteria in a case by case basis. You are infringing on another rights without cause, casting a wide dragnet and harming more people than you help.

    I have referred to your comments in the original post in quotes, and invite you to set your emotions aside and RESEARCH ALL THE FACTS AND STATISTICS, not just the ones convenient to your cause. This is Washington State, we ALL know about cherry picking.

    " They do almost nothing to prevent criminals or deranged individuals from getting guns in the first place. Thatís wrong. "

    NO VICTIM - NO CRIME.. even the supreme court is taking up the issue of restricting access to private property (IE.. a means of self-defense) for convicted felons... which goes to the current federal law that has criminal consequences for wide variety of prohibited persons for obtaining firearms -

    Also please, if you are going to wave around the statistic of how many criminals are PREVENTED from gaining access to firearms by denials on the NICS system.. Why werenít they followed up and prosecuted as per the law??

    You can't have it both ways..

    "First, close the gun show loophole." - #1. FFL licensed dealers can only sell to people who pass a background check, even at gun shows... #2. There is a federal law in place so even if you SELL your firearm to a prohibited person, you've just committed a FEDERAL crime. But I digress, back to my original point.. NO VICTIM NO CRIME... if two people enter into a consensual transaction, wither it be alcohol, weed or sex or guns, HOW is that harming you??

    Crimes are to punish aggressors, where they have wronged an actual person. Letís drop the social agenda and get your phobias worked on.

    "Second, ban assault guns." Why? Knives hammers and even fists kill more people each year... I hear rumblings overseas about banning knives with points, But they still have edges. What are you going to do about the fists and blunt objects?? And by the way, Did you know that innocent bystanders are 5x less likely to be harmed by an armed citizen than an law enforcement officer?

    "Third, require gun locks and safe gun storage" how are you going to enforce that without violating a citizenís right to unlawful search and seizure... locks and storage to prevent child access is an EDUCATIONAL issue, just like they do with the drowning in pools. Pointing the guns of government at people is not going to make the safer. Heaven forbid you should call 911 instead of the suicide hotline...

    "Finally, collect information statewide on where crime guns are being purchased. " did you hear how much money Canada had wasted on their gun registry? It was over two billion a year towards the end.... plus there were issues with administrative fiat in asking people to turn in some weapons that they didn't like. In the end it was concluded that it gave officers a peace of mind, but did nothing to impact the public safety.

    "Would any of these steps have prevented the tragedy on Capitol Hill? We canít say. But we do know that taken together, these commonsense steps will save innocent lives from being lost to gun violence on the streets in our communities. "

    Even by Obama's CDC study, the LOW END of the Defensive gun uses (DGU) each year are 500,000 with the upper limit of 3,000,000. So you would sacrifice half a million innocent people to violent criminals.. Some of whom WILL DIE, in order to potentially save 30,000 (of which 2/3 are SUICIDES?) (Remember the freedom of self-determination??)

    So you will infringe upon peopleís natural rights to self-determination, property and privacy AND self-defense to save that ONE LIFE. But if you understood the unreported nature of DGUs, you know that these measures will not save lives, they will cost them in the form of innocent people disarmed in the face of violent criminals who do not respect the laws... no matter what form you make them or how many papers you pile on.

    Gun control does not add up. It doesn't save lives. It costs them...

    You may have less people harmed by "gun violence" but when criminals know that good people are unarmed, they become more bold

  2. #2
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Pierce County, Washington
    State laws focus on punishing criminals after they commit crimes with guns. They do almost nothing to prevent criminals or deranged individuals from getting guns in the first place. Thatís wrong.
    So... We should punish people before they commit a crime? I didn't know that this person has some 6th sense and can predict when a crime would take place. When did I start living in the movie "Minority Report"?
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Unfortunately, we have some of the weakest guns laws of any state in the country. In fact, local communities like Seattle are preempted from passing tougher regulations to deal with proliferation of illegal guns on our streets
    So, he wants more illegal guns in Seattle because he wants Seattle to make more guns illegal.

    This guy is an idiot.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Why can't I post a comment on his mentally ill rant?

    The majority of law enforcement officers oppose I-594 because they know that all it is going to accomplish is tie up their already scarce resources on doing thousands of background checks every year on people who are applying for them BECAUSE THEY OBEYTHE LAW!

    So, it's up to the voters - what do you want your law enforcement resources spent on doing? Do you want LEO out there investigating crimes and criminals? Then vote NO on I-594. Do you want LEO sitting behind a desk doing thousands of background checks on people who are applying for them because they obey the law? Then vote YES on I-594.
    Last edited by NavyLCDR; 10-28-2014 at 11:46 AM.

Posting Permissions

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