Seattle Times Letter to the Editor

sirpuma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sirpuma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave_pro2a said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sirpuma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sirpuma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave_pro2a said:

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.

Click to expand...

Boy did you fail to read or what. There are no "fake threats of 'terrorism'" anywhere in my comment. Perhaps you should give my older brother a firearm. He just finished a 12 year sentence for statutory rape and was discharged out of navy basic with an other than honorable and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with psychotic tendencies. After all, he's a US citizen and has the unfettered right to have guns.

And I'm against the Patriot act and most government in fact. But I'm all for EDUCATION so that people can be safe which is what you people are FAILING to understand. And what the heck is "FUD"?

Jim675 said:

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.

Click to expand...

"A man should either be imprisoned or free."

I don't believe longer prison sentences help. They certainly don't change people for the better. Prisons were intended to hold people until their punishment was meted out not as punishment itself. No, you can't stop people that are bent on destruction and you can't cure stupid, but we can try.

I wish to hell I had received proper firearms safety instruction when I was young. I wish to hell my dad had so that I wouldn't have had an ND when I was 3 and my friend wouldn't have had his when we were 15.

Criminal punishments should be hard and swift but some people who are ok to walk the streets just shouldn't own a firearm, particularly people on meds intended to stabilize their personality. You say "many a 18/21 year old ... do just fine" but many don't. With proper education on safety and responsibility we could at least reduce the number of NDs or idiots. Same goes with alcohol, spouses, contracts and especially with children, LOL. God knows parents need a GIANT handbook to help out with their first kid. And there is a ton of free education out there for people seeking help with those things. There is even education in the schools (sex and parenting education is part of the curriculum.) But firearm safety and responsibility is something that has been lacking for the past 50-80 years.

People want to whine and focus on government regulation. Well, there's government regulation aplenty and none of it does a bit of good. You want to shout "freedom" and give a violent criminal a firearm. Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve and will receive neither." (or something along that line) But I'm not talking about giving up freedom, I'm talking about ensuring education. People here assume I'm talking about restrictions and government involvement. I'm not. Every time I did a transfer, I spent at least a few minutes going over the firearm with the customer, just to be sure that they understood it. A few of my customers were new to firearms and I would spend as much as two hours covering safety and the proper care and responsibility that went with that firearm. I did it for FREE.

If our government would quit spending so much of our tax dollars giving it to people who don't deserve it or on projects that don't help everyone there would be plenty of money to subsidize firearms safety education.

sirpuma said:

Boy did you fail to read or what. There are no "fake threats of 'terrorism'" anywhere in my comment.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

*cough*bullshiat*cough*

I have judged Andy Anderson's "moral responsibility" to be lacking based on his blatant disregard for the rights of his fellow gun owners. He must now surrender his CPL and all of his firearms.

So, when the state says that everyone that wants to own a firearm in WA has to take a $5000.00 class in Chesaw given only on days that have a blue moon, would that be ok?

See, the problem with state mandated training is that the state can make whatever rules it wants to, to exclude whoever they chose to exclude. Those of us old enough to remember literacy tests for voting can vouch for this...

People who fail to treat firearms properly already suffer the consequences of their actions, just like those who abuse the other civil rights. Requiring "training" of any kind is a violation of the Constitution. Using a firearm for self defense is a "fundamental human right," and the handgun is the quintessential self defense weapon....

sirpuma said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that education is a good thing in regards to your Rights. The point is that if the government REQUIRES it, it is no longer a RIGHT. The government should not be involved period. It is all of our responsibility, personally and collectively.

sirpuma said:

But I'm not talking about giving up freedom, I'm talking about ensuring education. People here assume I'm talking about restrictions and government involvement. I'm not. Every time I did a transfer, I spent at least a few minutes going over the firearm with the customer, just to be sure that they understood it. A few of my customers were new to firearms and I would spend as much as two hours covering safety and the proper care and responsibility that went with that firearm. I did it for FREE.

Click to expand...

Thank you for doing your part! Now I and others will do ours.

tombrewster421 said:

I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that education is a good thing in regards to your Rights. The point is that if the government REQUIRES it, it is no longer a RIGHT. The government should not be involved period. It is all of our responsibility, personally and collectively.

Click to expand...

Agree

License to Carry a Concealed Pistol Moral Responsibility Test
1. Society accepts pulling your pistols and threatening to do bodily harm to those with bodily odors in Sultan, but not in Bellevue. True or False.
2. It is morally acceptable to teach children to smoke illicit prescription POT from the barrel of a loaded Jimiz .25. True or False.
3. To prove you have the morality required to obtain a CPL you need only to:
a. Belong to a government union
b. Be a NRA Life member
c. Fund a local liberal politician
d. All of the above
4. Moral responsibility starts with blaming George W. Bush.
5. Dr. Kevorkian should have written prescriptions to his patients for a dose of 325gr. JHP administered through a .500 S&W. True or False.

How many qestion do you think Andy would require? Please add more as needed.

Ok, weeee this is going to be fun.

[sarcasm] Lets run with all of your ideas. No background checks, anyone can own, carry and use any kind of firearm they like, any way they like, anywhere they like any time they like, without verifying that they are capable or understand their rights or responsibilities. Now let's apply this idea to other areas that infringe on our rights to be happy and free.

Doctors no longer need to prove they have received medical training before being licensed to be a medical doctor and drop that whole requirement for malpractice insurance while we're at it. After all, that infringes in their rights to work.

Let's license anyone to drive any vehicle without having them get trained or better yet, pilots. Anyone can now just walk up and get their pilots license and fly away, after all, any 10 year old can do that.

No need to muck about with hunter safety, let anyone just run around doing what they want and so what if someone gets killed.[/sarcasm]

If you guys can't see the point and only want to insult me, that's fine. I personally couldn't care less if the only thing you can do is insult me to try and make me change my mind, because it simply won't work. We require training for a large number of licenses. Every one of those things I mentioned put people in control of something that puts others lives at risk if they don't know what they're doing.

In no way does requiring firearm safety education infringe on any right or freedom. In fact it's just the opposite, it would enhance it. The concealed pistol license doesn't prevent you from carrying a firearm does it?

Our ancestors who founded this nation intended the Second Amendment to be the rule for everyone. We are the militia. We are our nations defense. Back then they educated themselves on their firearms use and safety starting at a very early age. Children as young as 8 were taught to use a rifle or a pistol to defend themselves. It was required if you were part of the militia.

We require our soldiers to prove they are competent with firearms before they are permitted to participate in combat. Would you then take just anyone, hand them a rifle and stick them on the battle field without any knowledge of the firearm and expect them to do well? I wouldn't.

I understand you all are having a raving fit over the words Required Training. But we already require our children to get an education whether it be public, private, or home school. Why do you then balk at making firearm safety and use part of that education. You complain about police not using their firearms properly, but in reality, they don't receive any real training either, which is a travesty.

People are required to prove they are competent to operate a vehicle by taking a test or completing drivers ed. People under a certain age are required to complete hunter safety courses in order to be licensed to hunt. If the government is going to issue a license that says you can do something then they should require people to prove they can do it, no mater what it is. They already require this for pilots, doctors, lawyers (I know there's a fail there), motorists, dentists, crane operators, and the list goes on and on. What is so horrid about making sure people who carry a firearm can do so safely and competently?

Our country requires some level of drivers education before we license them to get behind the wheel. While no one is perfect we do have a better driving record than say South America. Germany has a very lengthy and intensive process to get licensed to drive on the autobahn and their safety record is better than the US.

We could actually eliminate a lot of laws for stupid stuff if we would just ensure people got trained. Remember that the Constitution was put there to tell the Federal government what it's limitations was. It doesn't really apply to the states which is why Commiefornia gets away with so much. You want to talk about infringing on an individuals rights, they really do it. Besides, you don't have to look at it like a requirement of the person but of the government. Before they can issue you a CPL they must provide you with proper safety and competency training.

And how is requiring training at a violation of the Constitution? If that was the case, many states would have lost a bunch of lawsuits for that very same thing as some already require some level of safety courses.

Some of the excuses are a little far fetched but there is already a requirement for hunter safety courses before you get a hunting license. The comment about once every 4 years for $5000 was just plain silly. Hunter safety is inadequately provided but there are various places to get it done and I haven't found any cost related to that. But what would you be willing to spend to make sure that a competent instructor taught you or your children proper firearm safety and use? If every gun store could spend just one hour with those new to firearm and teach them proper safety and responsibility and if every owner would take it upon themselves to get educated then there wouldn't be any need to require training. As it is we require safety courses for all kinds of licensed activities except one very dangerous one, firearms.

But since I've exercised my right to free speech, you may now lambaste me with your insults, flames and all the other standard fare of the internet. I won't be returning to this thread and possibly not even this board. Certainly I'll be taking a break. Have fun, stay safe, game on.

Hunting and self defense have nothing to do with each other. False flag.

sirpuma said:

SNIP...they educated themselves on their firearms use and safety...

Click to expand...

The key to it all; leave it at this!

sirpuma said:

Boy did you fail to read or what. There are no "fake threats of 'terrorism'" anywhere in my comment.

Click to expand...

God damn, you're friggen unbelievable.

Are you a FUDD?

Are you an Obama voter?

Why do you twist around with lies and deception to try and bolster your totally inane and unconstitutional position?

Why do you deny that firearm laws, in general, get stricter over time and not more lax. And if we let the Feds nose into CCW law then gun owners in free states will get the shaft. These are concepts that are just hard to argue against with a genuine straight face.

But, good luck to you. I'm sure Fineswine and the Brady bunch love people like you.

sirpuma said:

But since I've exercised my right to free speech, you may now lambaste me with your insults, flames and all the otI won't be returning to this thread and possibly not even this board. Certainly I'll be taking a break. Have fun, stay safe, game on.

Click to expand...

Crap, I admit I'm wrong. There should be a licensing requirement, testing and mandatory education before someone can exercise their Right to free speech. It would save the entire internet from tons of stupidity.

What was I thinking. Thanks Sirpuma for proving me wrong. Constitutional rights SHOULD require tests, training, and all that jazz.


(umm, yeah, all that was sarcasm)

At least guns come with a user manual, unlike having children for example. We trust our fellow citizens to figure out certain things using common sense. Unless there's substantial evidence to suggest Washington State's "must issue" policy is creating a problem for society, I don't see the need to administer a solution.