Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Seattle Times endorses gun control...again

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,861

    Seattle Times endorses gun control...again

    Seattle Times predictably endorses gun control, ignites furious debate

    The Seattle Times has predictably endorsed another gun control measure — Initiative 1491, the so-called “extreme risk protection order” proposal — and it has ignited a furious, and at some points, nasty debate among readers.

    http://conservativefiringline.com/se...urious-debate/
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-23-2016 at 08:17 AM. Reason: fixed title, rule #19

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,521
    dave, who are the critics, where is the nasty unrest you speak of? who are the 'they' that are spending, or critics, or the proponents you speak of? w/o name, face, or point of reference these are antonymous and vague references.

    what is your message & why is it at the bottom of your blog forcing everyone to read through to get to what you believe needs to occur? i noticed with interest you also did not make the pitch here about what needs to be done.

    WASHINGTONIANS NEED TO GET OUT AND VOTE TO ENSURE I 491 DOES NOT PASS!!

    quit referring to 594 it didn't cause a ripple in JQPublic's daily life and minimal, if any, in those who own firearms!

    ipse
    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,861
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    dave, who are the critics, where is the nasty unrest you speak of? who are the 'they' that are spending, or critics, or the proponents you speak of? w/o name, face, or point of reference these are antonymous and vague references.
    Evidently, you didn't read the hundreds of Seattle Times reader reactions.
    The initiative is backed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the same group that backed I-594. Half the money for that effort came from about a dozen individuals, and certainly less than 20 people. That's public record.

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Evidently, you didn't read the hundreds of Seattle Times reader reactions.
    The initiative is backed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the same group that backed I-594. Half the money for that effort came from about a dozen individuals, and certainly less than 20 people. That's public record.
    evidently, they are not attached to your blog nor the link in the blog...so explain again how your mentioning it has any objective evidence it occurred.

    and there you go again...'same group', nameless entities...shrouded in the invisible cloth...

    and what do you want the good readership here to do about it...contribute to the nameless entities who shall not be named? write letters? promote education? promote voting?

    this how this same conversation went the last time it was brought up on this forum about a month ago...everyone jumps up and down, waves hands, whines & complains yet do not present one iota of guidance to the masses to move forward in some fashion of a plan...then everyone sits on their hands to bemoan the fact it passed and why didn't someone do a bloody thing about it.

    594 and yes i was there and watched and listened...as everyone pointed to the other stating ~ hummm thought you were doing that...a whole dozen involved with stopping that initiative...seems like a good number...majority in northwest part of the state, huh...eastern WA didn't give a crap...huh!

    ipse
    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,885
    "extreme risk" not "super extreme risk" or "unbelievably dangerous risk" or "holy crap risk" or....

  6. #6
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    463

    Voters education is an individual responsiblity

    I want to submit for everyone to consider the following link to a .PDF file describing Joel's law. Decide for yourself if we need the proposed initiative or not. This is but one source of information, you may review the historical record at the legislatures website.

    ~Whitney

    https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/defaul...20Petition.pdf


    Summary:
    On July 24, 2015, Chapter 71.05 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), goes into effect. This new section is called Joel’s Law. This allows a person’s immediate family member, legal guardian, or conservator to petition the superior court for initial detention under certain conditions.

    A Joel’s Law Petition may be filed under the following circumstances:
    *You are an immediate family member, legal guardian, or conservator of the person that you seek to have detained. The law defines “immediate family member” as a spouse, domestic partner, child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, or sibling;

    *A Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) has conducted an investigation and decided not to detain that person for evaluation and treatment; or

    *It has been 48 hours since the DMHP received a request for investigation, and the DMHP has not taken action to have the person detained


    Here are the steps to follow:
    1. Go to your county’s Superior Court and ask the clerk for a Joel’s Law Petition for Initial Detention.” The petition requires the following:
     A description of the relationship between you and the person you are seeking to have detained; and
     The date the investigation was requested from the DMHP. In the petition, the person you are seeking to have detained will be called the “Respondent.”
    2. Complete a written and sworn declaration in support of your petition that describes why the person should be detained. You may describe past behavior, including a history of one or more violent acts, such as behavior that resulted in death, attempted suicide,nonfatal injuries, or substantial damage to property. You may also list prior commitments or determinations of incompetency or insanity.
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    463

    Editorial Board Interview

    Please spend a few minutes and watch the Seattle Times Editorial Board interview for this story.

    The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 1491 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

    http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016091085


    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    *A Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) has conducted an investigation and decided not to detain that person for evaluation and treatment; or
    Wait. Does that seriously say what I think it says?

    If you are evaluated by a qualified mental health professional, and they find that you are not mentally ill, you can be detained for mental illness SOLELY because you are not mentally ill?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    Please spend a few minutes and watch the Seattle Times Editorial Board interview for this story.

    The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 1491 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

    http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016091085


    ~Whitney
    Its an hour .. have a transcript link?

    Maybe I'll listen while I'm doing some mundane task.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    33,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Wait. Does that seriously say what I think it says?

    If you are evaluated by a qualified mental health professional, and they find that you are not mentally ill, you can be detained for mental illness SOLELY because you are not mentally ill?
    No that is not what it says.

    An evaluator has 3 choices = (1) mentally ill, (2) not mentally ill or (3) if a concern, detain for further investigation.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

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