Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Seattle Times Letter to the Editor

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Seattle Times Letter to the Editor

    I believe anyone getting a concealed carry permit should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility of carrying and using a firearm.
    LETTER

    Here is a typical self acclaimed 'Life NRA' member writing the biggest newspaper in the state. Note that the 1st commentator to his letter agreed with him and the second....well I didn't.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    Left my two cents, thx.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Apply that same logic/standard to the 1A, or any of the others, and see how well it goes over.

    Sorry, you cannot have free speech or freedom of religon, because you are not properly trained or of good moral character.

    Like a **** in a swimming pool. And the person who suggests this craziness with the 2A is simply idiotic, or a fascist, or a communist... or a liberal. Oh wait, there's not much difference between the four.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 09-18-2011 at 11:08 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member CEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, United States
    Posts
    50
    How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Zing... i may get a little detailed but i left a nice reply.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  6. #6
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    So on that theory, no one should be able to use the 1st amendment without passing english class.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    He must be from MA, MD, NY or NJ.. sounds just like them,

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Wa
    Posts
    49
    Left my opinion on the subject

  9. #9
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    So on that theory, no one should be able to use the 1st amendment without passing english class.

    Whoa, you might actually be on to something there.....


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by CEM View Post
    How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?
    +1

    I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.
    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)

  11. #11
    Activist Member SigGuy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    323
    CEM
    How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?
    +1

    I totally agree with this. Besides the firearm issue, the Government uses background checks for lots of things. Such as joining the military, police, political positions, DOD/State/City employees, and Agencies. It's how they give people security clearences. Background checks are The governments way of seeing if we have done anything illegal, and for what reason. If you pass, they are Assuming that you are a law abiding citezen and of good morals and ethics because you Don't or haven't broken any major laws. You never really know What a person is capabale of or will do in the future. That guy is and idiot. Enough said.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    as a veteran with an honorable discharge, I am automagically a "citizen in good standing" with the government of the US....does that count? (OK, given the state of the government, maybe not much)...

  13. #13
    Regular Member ARADCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    317

    Question I'm "confused".

    I read the forum posts first and then went and read the article. At least 3 of the posts have something in quotes ( "quote" ). Usually, when you're talking about a article, and using quotes, the quoted thing should be something from the article. In this case they are not.

    Which makes it kind of confusing and I think misleading. I think we are all capable of reading the article and understanding what it says without trying to put words into the guys mouth.

    Just my .02 worth.

  14. #14
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.
    The government has been steadily lowering the bar of what constitutes a felony, and declaring more and more acts felonious, for years.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=three+felonies+a+day

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.
    They have lowered "the bar on what constitutes a felony" but they just call it a domestic abuse violation that COULD have resulted in jail time of a year or more---- WHETHER ONE WAS EVER SENTENCED TO THAT LENGTH OF JAIL TIME OR NOT!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.
    So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.

    Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.

    Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.

    I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.

    ****

    Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.

    I think people are spending too much energy focusing on the word "moral" rather than the word "responsibility." Yes we have a right to free speech, but there is a responsibility that goes along with that like not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire or shouting "what's the hold up" in line at the bank when things are slow. There is a responsibility to the press to report the truth equally and unbiased (something that the MSM fails to do now.) The same thing applies to the right to keep and bear arms. We have a responsibility to understand how our firearms work, how to care for them so they work properly, to understand the laws surrounding the use of firearms and an understanding on when and where it's appropriate to use it. The goal is to ensure that the people who have access to firearms aren't going to use them to rob banks, shoot up neighborhoods, threaten people on the highway or accidentally shoot themselves in the hoohoo in Lowe's.

    That's my $0.10 worth.
    Last edited by sirpuma; 09-20-2011 at 11:32 AM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    ^^^^
    fail
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    We get to exercise the "Right to Vote" at 18 as long as we are drawing breath. The State has nothing to do with us reaching this requirement. Each Right does come with a Responsibility and the State should have nothing to do with the ability of a person to exercise either. If your actions cause harm to another, then and only then should you be limited, due to your own actions, not just to "protect" us, in the exercise of your Rights and Responsibilities.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.
    Yep, I'm fine with that. If the person is violent and dangerous, they shouldn't be let out. If they're allowed out, they should retain their rights.

    Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.
    So, basically, you shouldn't be allowed to talk because you haven't had classes in formal logic? Think about all the logical fallacies that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to speak had to go through a basic formal logical class that would teach them about their chosen position.

    Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.
    The orphaned right. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be. Hume's guillotine.

    I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.
    We don't make sure that every person who wants to exercise freedom of their religion understands and upholds religious freedom of other religions. We don't say that the right against search and seizure must first involve training in what search and seizure is. Basically, it's only when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms that we lose our collective perspective on what it means to have a right.

    Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.
    If we required everyone who wanted freedom of speech to undergo formal logic training, there would be fewer fallacies out there. If we required everyone who wanted freedom against unreasonable search and seizure to first have their property searched completely and all purchases they made log, we wouldn't have so many people buying illegal things. Guess what? There is an inevitable tradeoff when comparing freedom versus security, and most of the people here fall on the "freedom" side of the spectrum.
    "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

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    ^^^^
    fail
    Which part is fail, the part where I feel people should be educated in their rights and responsibilities or the part where I feel people should be educated in their firearms and firearm safety? Because that's my point.

    So as an example. Per everyone's arguments my older brother should have unrestricted access to any and all firearms same with my younger brother. Neither of which should every have one. How about Gary Ridgeway when he gets out? Perhaps we should hand 18 year olds who have never been around firearms a loaded handgun and tell them to carry it.

    Sorry, but I'm not the one failing.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.

    Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.

    Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.

    I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.

    ****

    Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.

    I think people are spending too much energy focusing on the word "moral" rather than the word "responsibility." Yes we have a right to free speech, but there is a responsibility that goes along with that like not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire or shouting "what's the hold up" in line at the bank when things are slow. There is a responsibility to the press to report the truth equally and unbiased (something that the MSM fails to do now.) The same thing applies to the right to keep and bear arms. We have a responsibility to understand how our firearms work, how to care for them so they work properly, to understand the laws surrounding the use of firearms and an understanding on when and where it's appropriate to use it. The goal is to ensure that the people who have access to firearms aren't going to use them to rob banks, shoot up neighborhoods, threaten people on the highway or accidentally shoot themselves in the hoohoo in Lowe's.

    That's my $0.10 worth.
    This is total garbage. FUD based idiocy.

    Crap thinking like that got us the Patriot act. Don't use fake threats of 'terrorism' to terrorize me, or ruin this country.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    Which part is fail, the part where I feel people should be educated in their rights and responsibilities or the part where I feel people should be educated in their firearms and firearm safety? Because that's my point.

    So as an example. Per everyone's arguments my older brother should have unrestricted access to any and all firearms same with my younger brother. Neither of which should every have one. How about Gary Ridgeway when he gets out? Perhaps we should hand 18 year olds who have never been around firearms a loaded handgun and tell them to carry it.

    Sorry, but I'm not the one failing.
    Yes you are failing, utterly. Read the COTUS. If you end up not liking what it says, then work on amending it.. don't try to use crazy metal gyrations to create false justifications for just disregarding it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Yes you are failing, utterly. Read the COTUS. If you end up not liking what it says, then work on amending it.. don't try to use crazy metal gyrations to create false justifications for just disregarding it.
    It surprises me that you want people to be stupid or arm criminals. Sorry, but I don't believe in arming violent criminals or in letting crazy people have guns.

    AT NO POINT HAVE I MENTIONED ANY GOVERNMENT REGULATION, CONTROL OR MORE LAWS. Geez, I'm talking about EDUCATING PEOPLE. But you all would hang me for even suggesting that people get educated. Perhaps we should do away with drivers education, hunter safety education or pilot school. Hell, lets get rid of all education all together where no one learns the Constitution, history or even how to read and write. You all would say that John Wayne Gacy was perfectly free to own and carry a firearm, even though he was crazy as a loon and went around murdering people.

    From now on, NONE of you should complain ONCE about NDs, or police arresting you for carrying openly, or crime. If you're not willing to educate people about their responsibilities, then don't complain about their failures.

    Oh, and don't forget, the COTUS is not so much to illustrate our rights, but to restrict the government.
    Last edited by sirpuma; 09-20-2011 at 01:58 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    It surprises me that you want people to be stupid and arm criminals. Sorry, but I don't believe in arming violent criminals or in letting crazy people have guns.
    Sorry, you clearly have not taken a formal logic class. I'm going to have to ask you to shut up now, as your right to free speech is contingent upon completion of such a class.
    "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

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    Which part is fail, the part where I feel people should be educated in their rights and responsibilities or the part where I feel people should be educated in their firearms and firearm safety? Because that's my point.

    Do you believe that a certain quota of laws should be passed each session or should they be designed to actually do something? Can you show that states without a training requirement for a concealed weapons permit are more or less dangerous per CPL carrier? I've never been able to able to find the slightest evidence of this.

    So as an example. Per everyone's arguments my older brother should have unrestricted access to any and all firearms same with my younger brother. Neither of which should every have one.


    If your siblings are a danger to the community you have my sympathy. They do not. They should still be locked up. If they are dangerous and free do you believe they could not arm themselves unlawfully? If they could, then the restrictions you support impact only the lawful.

    How about Gary Ridgeway when he gets out?

    A man should either be imprisoned or free.

    Perhaps we should hand 18 year olds who have never been around firearms a loaded handgun and tell them to carry it.

    I think this hyperbole has not been suggested by anyone in this thread. So I will. The truth is the vast majority would sell it, run from it, hide it, or use it responsibly and society's safety would see minimal impact.

    Sorry, but I'm not the one failing.

    The truth is lawful citizens pretty much do OK and have enough sense to get by in life. Many a 18/21 year old get their first weapon without prior training and do just fine. Same with alcohol, spouses, contracts and children. Some have problems, but legislation can't fix many of those problems.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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