Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Seattle Times Column

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    I was reading the paper at lunch today and ran across this column. I'm going to be writing a rebutal when I get home, but thought that a few of you may also be interested in it.


    When our latest cop-shooter, David Crable, showed that he was suicidal, violent and abusing alcohol, the courts in October cracked down on his use of a dangerous piece of machinery.

    His car.

    But not his guns.

    "I am afraid to be in my own home with him because of the many guns he owns," his mother told the court in May.

    "He carried a gun on himself at all times," said his Spanaway neighbor, Bobby Brown, Tuesday morning after Crable allegedly ambushed two Pierce County deputies, firing an estimated 10 shots from a few feet away.

    This case says it all about how blasé our society is about guns. Here's a guy with a "long history of terrorizing his family." He threatens his brother and his mother. He talks about shooting himself. In June he pulls a knife on his teenage daughter and shoves her face against a wall.

    "He has a little bit of a history of having weapons, he has multiple restraining orders against him from family members that he's terrorized, he does have convictions of domestic violence, and we have taken weapons from him before," summed up spokesman Ed Troyer of the Sheriff's Office.

    Yet the courts order him to attend parenting classes.

    And, due to a 2-year-old drunken-driving incident, to install an ignition-interlock device on his Corvette.

    As for his guns? Nothing.

    Those Corvettes, you've got to register them with the state. You have to pass a test to drive them. If you show you're sometimes too drunk to operate a Corvette in a safe manner, then we'll try to use technology to prevent you from starting the machine at all.

    Why? Because it's dangerous.


    But guns? For the most part, it's do as you please. No way for police to know whether you've got one or an entire arsenal. Not even when you're violent, suicidal and terrorizing your family.

    It's not the police or the courts' fault. They're operating by the rules we've set up. Which with guns is, barely any rules at all.

    Before the gun toters go all Second Amendment on me, I have always felt the Constitution grants a broad right to own guns. The U.S. Supreme Court has settled that issue, anyway.

    But rights aren't unlimited. There's nothing that bars gun registration. Or testing. Or, say, letting police track guns, with licensing or the use of microchips.

    Or how about this: taking guns away from you after you threaten your 15-year-old daughter with a knife.

    Now it's true: People like Crable aren't known for obeying. Maybe there was no way to prevent the seventh and eighth local police officers from being shot in the past two months.

    Tougher laws might not have stopped the first police shooting. That alleged perp, Christopher Monfort, had no criminal past.

    Maurice Clemmons was already barred from owning guns. Somehow he showed up that Sunday in a Pierce County coffee shop carrying a 9-mm handgun and a .38-caliber revolver, which he got from who knows where.

    Laws often won't stop the lethal combo of determined plus crazy.

    But here's the nagging thing — with guns we aren't even trying.

    All the sobriety checkpoints and ignition-lock devices don't rid us of drunken drivers either. But they help. At least society gets the message that it matters.

    With guns, it's another shooting, another collective shrug. Just the way it is, we say. Nothing to be done.

    I sense the cops have had about enough of that line of argument. You could hear it in the plea Tuesday of Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor.

    "They risk themselves for perfect strangers," he said of his officers.

    "We need to ask ourselves how we support people like that, how we back them, if they are going to stand in our stead, how we help them protect us. I would like to see the community engage in those questions and that dialogue so that we don't meet under these circumstances."

    He didn't get specific. I will. Unless we start taking guns as seriously as Corvettes, it's all but certain we're going to be meeting like this again.

    Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_danny23.html

    It was in the 'NorthWest' section of the Times today.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Caldwell ID
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Here is a piece I wrote and posted on the Oregon site the other day. Feel free to use it or any part of it when replying to this article if you think it will help.


    My handgun, openly carried on my side, isn’t what really scares you. You know that my gun, lawfully carried in its holster, will never harm you. Yet you find it necessary to give me dirty looks, make snide comments, or question my manhood because I choose to carry a gun. Why is that? Is it because my gun is a harsh look in the mirror for you? A stark reminder that while you pretend to live in a civilized society the truth is that barbarians still exist. A reminder that when the lawless come calling all that stands between them and the ones you love is a worthless piece of paper and ink. That when violence erupts in your perfect little world you will have to pick up a phone, dial three numbers and summon men with guns like mine to stop that violence. Except that in your heart you know those law enforcement officers can’t undo that violence. That all they can do is arrest those who broke the law, leaving you to deal with the aftermath, the terror and the damage that the lawless caused. So you work to pass more laws, more worthless words on paper, knowing that it won’t stop the barbarians but will keep me from carrying that gun. That harsh reminder of your own inadequacies.

    How about thanking me instead. While you can’t see into the minds of the evil around you, know that they too can see my openly carried gun. Know that as long as I am near they will keep their violence in check. That they fear my gun even more than you do, because while it will never harm you, they know without a doubt that I will use it to end their violence forever. That unlike law enforcement my gun isn’t carried to enforce the law but to prevent it from being broken in the first place. That when I meet violence I can respond with deadly and lethal force. That without hesitation I stand ready to defend myself and those around me from the lawless in our society. While I respect your decision not to stand ready, please respect my decision to always be ready, willing and able to keep the wolves at bay. If you can’t manage a thank you a simple smile and nod will do.




    Ruger9mm


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    He acknowledged the exact reason why his argument was pointless and meaningless: the fact that it wouldn't lower the rate of violence!

    Ruger, that was just beautiful, did you write it? Could I be so bold as to ask your permission to print that out?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    If we are going to pimp the officers who are being shot by these folks (many of whom seem to have somehow "slipped" through the court system) and try to use these events to effect change, how about asking police officers what THEY think the answer is?

    The majority of rank and file cops are pro-second amendment and don't have a problem with the current gun laws. What they would probably suggest is something more along the lines of keeping violent folks in custody, setting higher bail amounts, longer sentences for offenders, and more monitoring of those on probation and parole along with stricter charging, meaningful sentences and seeing people actually serving the time given instead of having 3/4 of it dropped for "good behavior".

    Since it is, in fact, the rank and file line troops who face the danger on a daily basis and not the administrative and management officers, it doesn't seem to make much sense to spout off what the police chiefs or sheriffs think since they are more often than not political appointments or politicians themselves and are far removed from the day to day challenges faced by there officers.

    I guess that's the problem when you are trying to push an agenda rather than solve a problem, you are blinded by what you want and can't see what is actually needed.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Caldwell ID
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    kito109654

    I wrote it and you, and anyone else who wants to, has my permission to use it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Sweet, thanks.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Posting it here is awesome. Now you need to post it where it will actually matter. Like on the Brady campaign websites and sites like it.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Yea, no criminal would ever think their way around these kinds of "genius" gun control schemes, because no black market would spring up overnight around bypassing firearm-integrated biometrics or spoofing serial numbers and microchips if they passed those kinds of laws. :quirky

    Nobody hacks computers these days and as we all know, 300,000,000+ number registries work great. <sarcasm>

    I do "kinda" agree with this guy on one thing however. When you have a person of criminal history that can no longer own or be in possession of firearms, taking away and accounting for their firearms would be prudent.

    Problem is, the registration schemes necessary to make such a thing work have the potential to harm more than they help, and a restricted person who is dead set on getting their hands on guns after their own guns had been taken away, will get them.

    Even England, which is on a freaking ISLAND, has major troubles keeping black market guns out of the hands of....well....ANYONE!

    A society willing to restrict liberties tightly enough indeed CAN restrict the availability of firearms quite a bit to its citizens, but they can never eliminate that flow, and since the criminal elements of our society are a bare minority in the first place, what supply still exists will be near guaranteed to the criminals because the profitability for that supply will empower the black markets that support it, and visa-versa.

    Where have we seen the sheer profitability in supply of an illegal item make powerful black markets and rich criminals before?? Hmmm....






  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    How about thanking me instead. While you can’t see into the minds of the evil around you, know that they too can see my openly carried gun. Know that as long as I am near they will keep their violence in check. That they fear my gun even more than you do, because while it will never harm you, they know without a doubt that I will use it to end their violence forever. That unlike law enforcement my gun isn’t carried to enforce the law but to prevent it from being broken in the first place. That when I meet violence I can respond with deadly and lethal force. That without hesitation I stand ready to defend myself and those around me from the lawless in our society. While I respect your decision not to stand ready, please respect my decision to always be ready, willing and able to keep the wolves at bay. If you can’t manage a thank you a simple smile and nod will do.
    I have to make a very serious critique here, and I mean no offense by it.

    I know the point you're trying to get across; so does everyone else on this board. But the above paragraph, when read by anyone other than a pro-2A individual, has "self-appointed vigilante guardian" written all over it:

    I keep their violence in check.
    They fear my gun.
    I will end their violence forever.
    I prevent the law from being broken.
    I am a deadly and lethal force.
    I am the defender of all those around me.
    I keep the wolves at bay.
    You should be thanking me for doing all this.

    Easy pickings for the anti-gun crowd. If I were playing for the other team, I would have no trouble painting the author as a stereotypical "gun nut" who thinks he's a badass.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Theres that old lie again:

    "I have always felt the Constitution grants a broad right to own guns. The U.S. Supreme Court has settled that issue, anyway."

    The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS. It FORBIDS the Government from INFRINGING on that right.

    Love it how the Liberals and Subversives have nothing to stand on but false information and emotion!

    Feee-lings, wo oa ah- Feee-lings...

    Name that tune! 10 points

    "Unless we start taking guns as seriously as Corvettes, it's all but certain we're going to be meeting like this again."

    Second lie. The system is totally incompetent to STOP crime, it is unable to prevent (violent) actions. So, they want to control the "thing."

    But wait, controlling guns DOES NOT reduce crime, so it proves that they are not about crime control, they want to control ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY.

    Thats the Marxist State for you.

    Liars they are. Just not very good at it...

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    If only we had more rules and tighter restrictions bad people couldn't hurt others. That's why there's no violence or weapons in prison.

  12. #12
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    The sad part is the anti gun crowd holds England and Australia up as shining examples of gun control. They just don't mention the massive jump in crime since enacting their vision of utopia.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    gsx1138 wrote:
    The sad part is the anti gun crowd holds England and Australia up as shining examples of gun control. They just don't mention the massive jump in crime since enacting their vision of utopia.
    Of course not. Their only goal is maximizing hostility, chaos and murder, but they can never take credit for it without having to be brought up on charges.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Capn Camo wrote:
    Feee-lings, wo oa ah- Feee-lings...

    Name that tune! 10 points
    ... trying to forget my, feelings of hate. Imagine, beating on your face....

    - The Offspring "Feelings" from Americana


    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Capn Camo wrote:
    Feee-lings, wo oa ah- Feee-lings...

    Name that tune! 10 points
    ... trying to forget my, feelings of hate. Imagine, beating on your face....

    - The Offspring "Feelings" from Americana

    HaHaHa I was thinking of the exact same thing. Loved that album.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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