Bellingham Walmart

imported post

To Hank, Hendo and anyone else who wants to see another law.

I have to disagree with your opinion that there needs to be another law or regulation of any kind. The Second Amendment was not written with the idea of concealled weapons, weapons restrictions, sporting purposes etc. and should be honored the way it was written. I have a funny feeling that even in the time period that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, there were dumb-asses walkin around that the authors didn't want to see armed. They STILL made no provision for common sense, intelligence, weight or popularity. God gave us certain rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to guarantee them.

I respectfully submit for your combined intellect to digest that there are over 60,000 laws pertaining to firearms in this Country. Really? Do we need just one more? I think not. Honestly, what GOOD will one more do? We can't enforce what we have to stop crime, let's just make honest people just through some more hoops.

Just because you FEEL a certain way, does not mean that we need another law. Believe me, I have a LOT of feelings. "My truck weighs over 7000lbs and is pretty tall, why can't I run over that guy who just cut me off? Why do I not have the ability to beat the stupid out of people no matter how hard I have tried?"

Yeah, we all have thoughts and feelings. I could start an initiative, but I'm afraid my thoughts above are probably better left off the ballot.

With regard to mandatory training for CPL? Again, do we NEED another law? Cite for us less than educated folk some facts to back up your statement please. Something other than "you'd FEEL better". Feelingsare cute, go have a beer, realize we're all a bit different and try to respect your fellow Americans a little more and regulate them a little less.

Next we're gonna have Gov run Health Care or somethin.

imported post

With regard to mandatory training for CPL? Again, do we NEED another law? Cite for us less than educated folk some facts to back up your statement please. Something other than "you'd FEEL better". Feelings are cute, go have a beer, realize we're all a bit different and try to respect your fellow Americans a little more and regulate them a little less.

Click to expand...

The rate of accidental and unjustified shootings by CPL holders here in WA is pretty much the same as it is elsewhere: i.e. so low it's lost in the statistical noise.

Given that it won't be possible for anyone to clearly demonstrate any actual harm coming from our "lack" of a training requirement, doesn't it just boil down to whether one thinks the people are sovereign, vs thinking the government is sovereign?

imported post

kparker wrote:

With regard to mandatory training for CPL? Again, do we NEED another law? Cite for us less than educated folk some facts to back up your statement please. Something other than "you'd FEEL better". Feelings are cute, go have a beer, realize we're all a bit different and try to respect your fellow Americans a little more and regulate them a little less.

Click to expand...

The rate of accidental and unjustified shootings by CPL holders here in WA is pretty much the same as it is elsewhere: i.e. so low it's lost in the statistical noise.

Given that it won't be possible for anyone to clearly demonstrate any actual harm coming from our "lack" of a training requirement, doesn't it just boil down to whether one thinks the people are sovereign, vs thinking the government is sovereign?

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. There are many people in this world that I don't like or respect, I have upset a lot of people in the anti-gun crowd. Should I be allowed to regulate those I deem to be idiots? No! If I had my way, putting on make-up, shaving or trying to eat a salad while behind the wheel of a large SUV would be a felony!

Don't want someone to have the ability to regulate my life either.

Your point is right on the mark. In states where there is mandatory training as a prereq to obtaining a CWP/CPL or other acronym, there is nothing that I've found that can prove, using facts, that those permit holders are "safer". Typical emotion based response from those who want more regualtions.

They are proposing just another useless round of victimless, emotion based legislation.

imported post

Commodore76 wrote:

To Hank, Hendo and anyone else who wants to see another law.

I have to disagree with your opinion that there needs to be another law or regulation of any kind. The Second Amendment was not written with the idea of concealled weapons, weapons restrictions, sporting purposes etc. and should be honored the way it was written. I have a funny feeling that even in the time period that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, there were dumb-asses walkin around that the authors didn't want to see armed. They STILL made no provision for common sense, intelligence, weight or popularity. God gave us certain rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to guarantee them.

I respectfully submit for your combined intellect to digest that there are over 60,000 laws pertaining to firearms in this Country. Really? Do we need just one more? I think not. Honestly, what GOOD will one more do? We can't enforce what we have to stop crime, let's just make honest people just through some more hoops.

Just because you FEEL a certain way, does not mean that we need another law. Believe me, I have a LOT of feelings. "My truck weighs over 7000lbs and is pretty tall, why can't I run over that guy who just cut me off? Why do I not have the ability to beat the stupid out of people no matter how hard I have tried?"

Yeah, we all have thoughts and feelings. I could start an initiative, but I'm afraid my thoughts above are probably better left off the ballot.

With regard to mandatory training for CPL? Again, do we NEED another law? Cite for us less than educated folk some facts to back up your statement please. Something other than "you'd FEEL better". Feelingsare cute, go have a beer, realize we're all a bit different and try to respect your fellow Americans a little more and regulate them a little less.

Next we're gonna have Gov run Health Care or somethin.

Click to expand...

My Bad commodore, i will promise not to cut you off in my little Honda anymore :lol:

But +1 on your text here, i do agree. I have wrote many times that we have way to many laws, not just guns, but in general, and all avenues of our life. Laws should be simple, far and few in between, and should written in common tongue for the average person to understand. Spirit of the law should prevail more than the letter.

As per Hank... he just likes to cause strife and make chaos in threads -The only real motive (so far as i been able to tell.) is that he gets a personal rise out of upsetting people by picking attheir wording oropinions. Maybe he can prove me wrong sometime, would be a pleasant surprise... but not so far... He is smart, just seems to be an unprovoked antagonist (My personal opinion here). It is sad, because he is intelligent, and could be an asset to the forum if he demonstrated a better behaviour pattern.


Bat

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

My Bad commodore, i will promise not to cut you off in my little Honda anymore :lol:

Click to expand...

THAT WAS YOU??? Grrrrr....... Lol, happens so much. It's simply amazing to me that people just think I can stop on a dime to aviod...um...damaging them? Something like that.

With regard to laws, it's just impossible for me to wrap my mind around victimless legislation.

Case in point, here in my little town, we don't even have a stoplight. As of last week, the school zone had two "20MPH when flashing" signs installed. They have been flashing for the last three days non stop. Other than being annoying little lights that are very outof place among the crop fields and cows, we hadseveral Deputies writing tickets for anyone doing over 20MPH all day on Saturday.

By the letter of the law, they are "justified". Using common sense, that is INSANE! The ONLY thing occuring as a result is money being generated for the County. (I know, common sense is a dangerous term to just be throwin out there) Honestly, why, in the middle of a 55MPHzone do we have to slow down to 20MPH "for the children" at 10PM?Yes, letters have been written in protest, I fear they have been written in vain.

Gotta try, right?

I'm just tired of seeing the intent of the law being abused in the name of a couple of quick bucks for Gov at any level.

imported post

I do appreciate your thoughts and feelings about having too much legislation etc in re: to gun laws.

I am not suggesting any "emotion based legislation" or that the "...government is sovereign"or any other typical incendiary anti gun buzz words.

I simply do not agree that a gun owner should be untrained in the mechanics and functioning of a weapon, basic safety understanding and probably most importantly - when and how to safely and legally use the weapon.

I particulary wince when I hear someone expounding on how they will take out anyone trying to steal their TV or some other "thing" when they are not threatened or in danger. I am not describing a home invasion or other scenario but specifically potenitially killing someone for a "thing".

I would hazard to say that "most" gun owners do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes "self defense" for example. I would love to be wrong but I don't think I am.

I am for responsible citizens with guns.I know that is up for interpetation and I certainly don't have the answeras tothehow. One comparison I can make is that it is kind of likeallowing10yr olds to have unsupervised practice with a car out on the roads that we all share.

Might be a bit harsh. Oh well. BTW Commodore76 - not sure my feelings are "cute" - I do try to have a beer and have more respect for my fellow Americans - but sometimes I am tested - oh am I tested.

Hendo

imported post

Hendo wrote:

I do appreciate your thoughts and feelings about having too much legislation etc in re: to gun laws.

I am not suggesting any "emotion based legislation" or that the "...government is sovereign"or any other typical incendiary anti gun buzz words.

I simply do not agree that a gun owner should be untrained in the mechanics and functioning of a weapon, basic safety understanding and probably most importantly - when and how to safely and legally use the weapon.

I particulary wince when I hear someone expounding on how they will take out anyone trying to steal their TV or some other "thing" when they are not threatened or in danger. I am not describing a home invasion or other scenario but specifically potenitially killing someone for a "thing".

I would hazard to say that "most" gun owners do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes "self defense" for example. I would love to be wrong but I don't think I am.

I am for responsible citizens with guns.I know that is up for interpetation and I certainly don't have the answeras tothehow. One comparison I can make is that it is kind of likeallowing10yr olds to have unsupervised practice with a car out on the roads that we all share.

Might be a bit harsh. Oh well. BTW Commodore76 - not sure my feelings are "cute" - I do try to have a beer and have more respect for my fellow Americans - but sometimes I am tested - oh am I tested.

Hendo

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I respect your thoughts as to whether or not most gun owners are as educated as you would like. Let me ask you to consider that outside of each of our collective bubbles, none of us are as well educated as another might want, regardless of the topic.

The bar I have set as far as where I would like to see the average gun owner trained is unrealistic and would render the majority of gun owners weaponless. Again, just because I feel a certain way, does not give me anything more than just an opinion. I have no right to mandate how someone drives a car, wears their hair or trains with a firearm.

I would agree that many out there do not know how to correctly apply the lawful use of force and many would be confused by the term "castle law". Again, education is something that we can try to offer people, butthis topic ISoutside of the normal education system.

I believe that simply owning a weapon indicates a desire to proceed through this life in a responsible manner, but if someone has never been taught, we must allow for them to learn as they go.We do it every day in thisCountry with other machines that are VERY capable of killing.

Example:

Driving a car. There is NO way that you can learn all there is to know about driving a several thousand pound item at freeway speeds before you get your license. Hundreds of times a year around the Country, this proves to be a fatal miscalculation on the part of citizens. We still allow young adults to learn as they go and hope for the best. The only difference being thatinexperienced driversactually DO kill more innocent Americans than inexperienced gun owners. How can this be? There areDrivers Ed courses that have to be completed if the applicant is under a certain age, a written test and a driving test! The difference is the perception of necessity. We NEED cars, we don't NEED guns. Sadly, this is not true.

Even though the number of people killed by inexperienced driversis many times more than are killed by firearms each year, we still don't have passionate debates about restricting car ownership, waiting periods to purchase a car. Hell, you can be a convicted felon and buy a car. Why not a gun for self defense? If it's really a God given right that the Constitution guarantees, how can the Government say that you're no longer worthy of a right given by God? (No, I'm not advocating arming felons, just raising another aspect for debate.)

My point in being this vocal is that I'm tired of watching the pro-gun community getting their asses kicked unfairly by those who just don't get it. The gun community has been an easy target for frustration for many years. OCDO is a huge example of people having enough and banding together to make a change. The more laws that get passedattackingfirearms, the more folks like me are going to get passionate about defending them. The difference between "killing tools" whether they be cars or guns is huge. Cars are by far the greater of the two evils! (No, I'm not going to give up my vehicle, just asking that my example is given it's due and hope that people can keep their legislation off of their perception of my firearms education and permitting.)

I meant you no disrespect, Hendo. Obviously, I'm getting more and more passionate about the defense of firearms ownership.

Sincerely,

Commodore

imported post

I feel like I should mention that Mike never said he was THE manager, only A manager. I don't know if that means that he is an assistant manager or maybe a department manager. I knew he was anti. He said that it was "cute", I informed him that I'd had my sidearm on my person the last four times I talked to him. He said that he never even noticed. As some of you may know, I'm waiting on my CPL, so that should tell you that it was NEVER concealed, just that he never noticed it.

ETA: I go to Walmart alot, LOL!

imported post

Me too. He tried to portray himself as the manager when I talked to him, he isn't even the assistant manager he is a assistant department manager. I am just glad that Terry see's it as our right, he is a real good guy.

imported post

How about, instead of requiring training, a law be passed that uses roughly the same amount of money to *subsidize* training and promote the availability of useful defense classes? That'd go a lot further towards making people safe, and it's less likely to cause bad PR for whoever passes the law.

imported post

Com76, Thanks for your thoughts. Iunderstand your perspective and that's what everything usually comes down to.

I agree with how you make the distinction between what I would want and what I think should be legislated.

I enjoy the discussion.

H

imported post

I think HankT is lonely since I have yet to find and anti site with a forum. Usually it is just a bunch of links to donate money and a whole lot of lies on the page. They don't want people actually talking about the issues and getting educated at their sites.

imported post

Hendo wrote:

I simply do not agree that a gun owner should be untrained in the mechanics and functioning of a weapon, basic safety understanding and probably most importantly - when and how to safely and legally use the weapon.

I particulary wince when I hear someone expounding on how they will take out anyone trying to steal their TV or some other "thing" when they are not threatened or in danger. I am not describing a home invasion or other scenario but specifically potenitially killing someone for a "thing".

I would hazard to say that "most" gun owners do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes "self defense" for example. I would love to be wrong but I don't think I am.

I am for responsible citizens with guns.I know that is up for interpetation and I certainly don't have the answeras tothehow. One comparison I can make is that it is kind of likeallowing10yr olds to have unsupervised practice with a car out on the roads that we all share.

Might be a bit harsh. Oh well. BTW Commodore76 - not sure my feelings are "cute" - I do try to have a beer and have more respect for my fellow Americans - but sometimes I am tested - oh am I tested.

Hendo

Click to expand...

I agree with most of the above. People should be trained, people should be responsible, people should be educated, and people should be informed. Where we part ways is that I don't see those things as necessitating any laws. We are a country founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom. Unfortunately that also includes the liberty and freedom to make mistakes.

Once folks get in their mind that "safety" can be legislated, the ideals of liberty and freedom are chipped away in the interest of the "common good". Soon you can't do many things you would like to do, even if you can do it responsibly and without infringing on the rights of others.

As an example- I grew up using fireworks, legal or illegal. Managed to never set anything on fire, managed to keep all of my fingers, managed to not get anyone else hurt or killed. Yet now it is nearly impossible to enjoy a few sparklers in many parts of this state because of folks who decided laws were need to protect everyone.

I don't doubt that some folks have been spared injury or death as a result of the laws, but I think that as good as that may be, I don't think it is worth the infringement on other's liberty that has been taken. Now I have no problem if they want to make a law to apply to those who are stupid or irresponsible, but that unfortunately can't be done as the laws have to apply to all.

What they could do is make a law that applies to all based on forcing responsibility on someone who has caused harm. Instead of "It is unlawful to use fireworks", what is is wrong with "It shall be unlawful to use a firework in a way that causes harm or damage"?

What is wrong, is that people are hung up on the notion (fantasy?) of prevention and proactive intervention in the name of "safety". They make laws to stop people from doing things because doing them might cause a problem.

Should someone die because I want to play with fireworks? No, but that is looking at it backwards. They aren't going to die because I want to play with fireworks, they are going to die because they (or someone else) do something stupid.

Maybe if we had fewer laws "protecting" society from some of these folks, Darwin could do his work and we could get their genes out of the pool.


"Infringe" is defined as To encroach on someone or something. Not To encroach on someone or something without good reason or To encroach on someone or something not related to the common good.

It really is pretty clear. Yes, laws regarding required training and certification or particular equipment requirements ARE an infringement. The fact that a court has not ruled them as such doesn't change that. Many laws are passed that are enforced and supported, only to be eventually struck down as unconstitutional.

If those in power can change the mindset and perception of the majority before they are struck down, they still achieve a benefit by having something being de-normalized so that even after a law is stuck down the preferred behavior has become ingrained. Those who then go counter to the mindset, whether legal or not, are then ostracized and pressured (anyone see how this applies to OC?).

Such requirements (training, certification, equipment, etc.) at best become a financial obstacle (particularly to those with less disposable income) and interfere with a citizen's ability to exercise their rights. At worse, they can become a method to abuse authority and provide an end run to stop the exercise of the right all together through excess paperwork, fees, requirements, "red-tape", etc.

Back in the day, people wanted to make sure that only folks who could understand the issues and such voted so they instituted poll taxes. On the surface it was a great idea as no one wants the ill-informed or ignorant people setting policy for all of society. It wasn't long before those in power realized that poll taxes or tests could be bent to exclude the "undesirables" from exercising their right to vote. How many abuses occurred before those laws finally wound through the system and were struck down as being unconstitutional?


I'll leave discussion on my reasons why I think people SHOULD legally be allowed to kill another over a "thing" for another post. There was a time in this country that horse thieves and rustlers were hung, I am not sure that leaving those ideals has resulted in "progress"...

imported post

911Boss,

Both you and The Com (can I call you that?) make good points on legislating safety and training in re: to guns and the slippery and possibly manipulated slope.

I have directed my brain to review it's policy on this matter.

I certainly don't have the answers but I will still cringe when there is some kind of citizen shooting incident and forum members complain how the anti's will make hay with this or that and then wonder if training(or the lack of)was an issue.

Hendo

imported post

Hendo wrote:

I have directed my brain to review it's policy on this matter.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that you are required to have an EPA impact study and a 90 day public comment period prior to implementing any new policies. And, if we don't like your chosen new policy, we may choose to file suit in federal court.

:celebrate

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hmmm, so wouldn't all those states provisions for training and licensing (How many, 40 or so?) ALL ARE INFRINGING ON 2A? What's your legal basis for asserting that?

Any cases? Any decisions? Any state had their training/licensing rule unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

HankT,

Would you, prior to the Heller decision, have argued that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right, since the Supreme Court had not ruled that it did?

Is there a requirement in your mind that no law can be considered unconstitutional until such time as the courts have ruled on it?

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Hendo wrote:

I have directed my brain to review it's policy on this matter.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that you are required to have an EPA impact study and a 90 day public comment period prior to implementing any new policies. And, if we don't like your chosen new policy, we may choose to file suit in federal court.

:celebrate

Click to expand...

I think I would claim "Eminent Domain" on this one. I might get some of those interactive "get off my lawn - no really" interactive signs. I am also considering blowing up a few dams (mental blocks) to allow the salmon (ideas) to get upstream and mate. No telling what the outcome of that will be.