• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

What took CeaseFire so long to exploit L. Sammamish shooting?

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
There's a direct reference to O.C. in here...and Ralph Fascitelli's hoplophobic conduct in Olympia last winter at the hearing on banning so-called "assault weapons"

===========================================================

What took CeaseFire so long to exploit L. Sammamish shooting?

Why should Fascitelli presume he can dictate how other law-abiding Washington citizens peacefully go about their business? Why does he imagine that more stringent laws, that only impair the rights of law-abiding citizens, will stop criminal behavior?

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...eFire-so-long-to-exploit-L-Sammamish-shooting

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/25rsq3n
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
My response to Fascitelli ....

First,

No where in the McDonald v Chicago decision does the majority opinion refer to "reasonable" gun restrictions/laws. On the bottom of page 39 of Alito's opinion and at the top of page 40, Alito refers to the 3 areas of state government's available remedies: 1) felons and the mentally ill 2) sensitive places (schools and government buildings) 3) commercial sale of firearms.

Mr. Fascitelli read the decision and deal with the consequences. A park is not a sensitive place per the Supreme Court. You cannot randomly check people at a state park (ever heard of the 4th amendment?)

Also, in regards to "training"...

Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?
The Argument Against
Author Nick Smith


No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!
 
Last edited:

daddy4count

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

I would love to see some WA data on number of annual deaths related to firearms vs. automobiles... or for that matter firearms vs. everything else.

I think statistically firearms are safer than many of the objects and activities we subject ourselves to on a daily basis. The statistics on gun violence are often twisted to support the arguments against gun ownership. It would be interesting to compare actual causality data, not specifically related to crime.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Stats from the Washington Dept of Health

I would love to see some WA data on number of annual deaths related to firearms vs. automobiles... or for that matter firearms vs. everything else.

I think statistically firearms are safer than many of the objects and activities we subject ourselves to on a daily basis. The statistics on gun violence are often twisted to support the arguments against gun ownership. It would be interesting to compare actual causality data, not specifically related to crime.


The attached document is fromt he Washington Dept of health. It lists numbers of deaths in Washington State by cause from 1998 - 2007.
 

Attachments

  • FatalByYear_WashingtonState.pdf
    73.3 KB · Views: 105

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER.

Only for the sake of correctness, one can be forced to take the driving test again. Law enforcement officers have a mechanism for recommending a retest which is based on their observations of the driver in driving conditions. Is often used for "antique" drivers that like to drive on the Interstate @ 35mph in the middle lane. It is also used when someone returns to driving after a serious injury accident as happened to me 40 years ago. Is it done often? Probably not, but it CAN be done.

If we ever see CCW licenses that are honored in the same fashion as Driver's licenses, and training is the means that gets this done, I would expect that one could be "nominated" for retraining if they were to demonstrate by action that they can't carry a firearm safely.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Worth clicking this thread just to read your comments GoGo.

Thank you

Thank you NICK!!!
YOU WRITE CLEARLY AND THOUGHTFULLY!!!
i love you man!!

Again, thank you with your kind words.

If this reference/comparason doesn't convince people, nothing will.

Thank you Spyder
Well said, gogodawgs!

Only for the sake of correctness, one can be forced to take the driving test again. Law enforcement officers have a mechanism for recommending a retest which is based on their observations of the driver in driving conditions. Is often used for "antique" drivers that like to drive on the Interstate @ 35mph in the middle lane. It is also used when someone returns to driving after a serious injury accident as happened to me 40 years ago. Is it done often? Probably not, but it CAN be done.

If we ever see CCW licenses that are honored in the same fashion as Driver's licenses, and training is the means that gets this done, I would expect that one could be "nominated" for retraining if they were to demonstrate by action that they can't carry a firearm safely.

Yes, but it is a very persuasive argument. The "exceptions" you mention are quite rare and not relevant to the argument at hand. I typed this argument up 6 months ago or so and have used it in the comments of many newspapers websites when people argue for licensing. It tends to shut them up pretty quickly. I have actually been meaning to strengthen the argument, but for space reasons I have yet to do so.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Ceasefire should cease firing their mouth,.

+1. Why dont they uphold the meaning of their organization. Cease the need to fire a weapon in public. Instead they want to cease the carry of firearms by law abiding citizens, and cease the ability to defend oneself. Just like the Brady bunch who should be campaigning to prevent gun violence instead of campaigning to prevent gun ownership. they both have alterier motives behind their organizations.

Edited... I just saw Ceasefire is advertising for OpenCarry.org...

http://www.facebook.com/washingtonceasefire?ref=ts&v=wall#!/washingtonceasefire

Washington Ceasefire What is the policy regarding firearms where you shop? Some malls have declared themselves gun-free zones, and others have not. Ask a business owner this week about their gun policy. Maybe they don't even have one? Share what you learn on the discussion tab.OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ...
www.opencarry.org
 
Last edited:

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
+1. Why dont they uphold the meaning of their organization. Cease the need to fire a weapon in public. Instead they want to cease the carry of firearms by law abiding citizens, and cease the ability to defend oneself. Just like the Brady bunch who should be campaigning to prevent gun violence instead of campaigning to prevent gun ownership. they both have alterier motives behind their organizations.

Edited... I just saw Ceasefire is advertising for OpenCarry.org...

http://www.facebook.com/washingtonceasefire?ref=ts&v=wall#!/washingtonceasefire

Washington Ceasefire What is the policy regarding firearms where you shop? Some malls have declared themselves gun-free zones, and others have not. Ask a business owner this week about their gun policy. Maybe they don't even have one? Share what you learn on the discussion tab.OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ...
www.opencarry.org

See how long it takes for them to remove my comments.. :D
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
Only for the sake of correctness, one can be forced to take the driving test again. Law enforcement officers have a mechanism for recommending a retest which is based on their observations of the driver in driving conditions. Is often used for "antique" drivers that like to drive on the Interstate @ 35mph in the middle lane. It is also used when someone returns to driving after a serious injury accident as happened to me 40 years ago. Is it done often? Probably not, but it CAN be done.

If we ever see CCW licenses that are honored in the same fashion as Driver's licenses, and training is the means that gets this done, I would expect that one could be "nominated" for retraining if they were to demonstrate by action that they can't carry a firearm safely.
I used to be a driving instructor and cringed at who was able to get a driver's licence. I also cringe at the idea of an untrained individual being armed with no firearm training or education on the law regarding the use of a firearm.

What would be the general response to a Concealed Pistol Licence recognized in all 50 states if the trade off was a one time training that was less than say - $75 and at least included the laws on the use of a firearm (specific to that state) and live fire?
I understand the sentiment of "...shall not infringe..." and is there a middle ground?
 
Last edited:

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
What would be the general response to a Concealed Pistol Licence recognized in all 50 states if the trade off was a one time training that was less than say - $75 and at least included the laws on the use of a firearm (specific to that state) and live fire?
I understand the sentiment of "...shall not infringe..." and is there a middle ground?

If the license was recognized in all 50 states, for what specific state laws should the person trained?

Should a person be trained for use of their First Amendment rights before they are allowed to exercise them?

Requiring training for the free exercise of a right granted by our Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution is rediculous.

What you are proposing is more restrictive than what presently exists. Why do you want to do that? I carried a firearm in North Carolina several months ago, both open and concealed. Washington State requires no training; North Carolina recognizes Washington States CPL, and no license is required to open carry. Why would you want to impose more restrictions?

Gun laws don't work! Bad guys don't obey them. Why do you want to impose more laws on law abiding citizens?

I agree that training is wonderful. I've taken many courses, and I have more planned. But, how would you get bad guys to seek the required training? Oh, that's right. They don't have to get any training because they don't abide by laws anyway.

Good grief!
 
Top