• 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.

Washington Cease Fire Event 10/9 Greenlake

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
Nobody said to ignore Washington Ceasefire or any other anti-gun group. What was said is not to worry about them. We just need to keep an eye out and counter any moves they try to make. Use the AWB a couple years ago as an example. Over 300 people showed up in Olympia for that hearing. Only about a dozen or so supported the bill. Once that was seen it never made it out of committee.

Like the old saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". That's why vocal minorities often get things their own way. They annoy people into capitulation. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen.

That being said, Washington Ceasefire's memorial service at Greenlake wasn't exactly big on my things-to-worry-about list.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
I beg your pardon, Bookman. Gogo said in his first post on this thread that they were irrelevant and not to give them any attention or credibility. I was just disagreeing with that.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I see RCW 270 as part of the problem also; there is too much open to intepretation. We have NO LAW that states that OC is legal, only what is illegal. The antis will definitely interpret it to their viewpoint. Who defines what "manifests an intent to intimidate another" or what "warrants alarm for the safety of other persons?" We've already had a couple of cases along these lines that did not turn out very well or with a clear verdict of no wrong doing. At least that I am aware of; please correct me if I am wrong. The people who wrote this RCW certainly gave themselves (and the state) lots of wiggle room.

That fact, that we don't have any laws affirming the right to open carry is, in essence, the basis of our entire legal system. Constitutions apply limits to governments, which then pass laws within the framework of limited authority granted by the Constitution. ANYTHING that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed under our system.

Let's not assume we have nothing to worry about because it's in our Constitution, both federal and state. Yes, we have the 2A but that doesn't mean that they can't regulate where, when, & how. Cali just lost open carry, UNLOADED open carry!

The Constitution of the state of California does not guarantee any right to firearm ownership of any kind, nor does it restrict the government in any way with regards to keeping or bearing arms, save only the fact that the state Constitution is subordinate to the federal one; And given how the militia clause of the federal one fails to explain who is in the militia, there will always be claims by hoplophobes that it isn't an individual right.

I find that incredible!! AFAIK, there has never been a document yet written that can't be changed. How many amendments does our own Constitution have??? It just takes the "right" combination of politics, money, timing, and determination.

Actually, if you read the entire Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments cannot be repealed or modified to be more restrictive. Of course, if nobody broke laws, we wouldn't need police. All the laws we need to ensure our freedom are already on the books, if we could just get them enforced.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Did anyone notice the news coverage on TV? I caught a brief moment of it and it appeared that they had about 10 people or so. The cameraman had to maneuver a bit to get their "crowd" to fill about 2/3 of the picture:)

Apparently WA Ceasefire is a "Jobs Program" for Ralph Fascitelli. Wonder if he could hold down a real job?
 

badkarma

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
333
Location
Duvall, Washington
Did anyone notice the news coverage on TV? I caught a brief moment of it and it appeared that they had about 10 people or so. The cameraman had to maneuver a bit to get their "crowd" to fill about 2/3 of the picture:)

Apparently WA Ceasefire is a "Jobs Program" for Ralph Fascitelli. Wonder if he could hold down a real job?

You are mistaken. There were 20. 10 of them were new crew(camera, reporter, sound guys). The other 10 we actual WCF supporters and in order for them to attend they had to plant bulbs at the park.

They count that as 30. 10 for the rally, 10 planting bulbs(same 10 people) and 10 people from news crews. That sir is almost 100 which is probably what they claimed in their after action review.

<Sarcasim>
 
Last edited:

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
Did anyone notice the news coverage on TV? I caught a brief moment of it and it appeared that they had about 10 people or so. The cameraman had to maneuver a bit to get their "crowd" to fill about 2/3 of the picture:)

Apparently WA Ceasefire is a "Jobs Program" for Ralph Fascitelli. Wonder if he could hold down a real job?

The problem for us is that they got the coverage. Doesn't matter how many showed up. Potentially millions saw it.
 

ApacheBunny

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
99
Location
Steptoe, WA (wtf is that!?)
well they lie about their numbers and statistics, so i am sure they'll mix up 10 with 1000 and the new crew as 1010. Is it so hard to get a news anchor in our corner not calling us extremist grass roots pro gun groups, hate the term grass roots for some reason.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Especially since many of those CPL holders think OC is foolish. Had that discussion at the range Wednesday with a fellow shooter. CPL holder, NRA member, gun rights supporter all the way (his words) yet he feels OC makes too many people nervous and wouldn't loose any sleep if it was declared illegal.

It may not be productive to refer to the 350,000 CPL holders that much in an OC campaign. Lets face it, they did get their permit so they could carry Concealed and not just to cover their OC while in a vehicle.

The "Gun Culture" is divided on several issues. These divides actually give the "anti" plenty of ammunition.

Just look at how easy it is to slip into forgetting how to spell LOSE. Just remember LOOSE rhymes with MOOSE - just say no to losing the use of LOOSE. :dude:
 

jsanchez

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
499
Location
seattle
They had about 25 people there from the camera shot I saw. I think what they should have been called on was the figure of 6000 people killed by gun violence in this state over the last 10 years. From what I've seen of the murder satistics are about 100 people per year so that would be 1000 people over 10 years. The other 5000 must be suicides and a accidents.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
They had about 25 people there from the camera shot I saw. I think what they should have been called on was the figure of 6000 people killed by gun violence in this state over the last 10 years. From what I've seen of the murder satistics are about 100 people per year so that would be 1000 people over 10 years. The other 5000 must be suicides and a accidents.

Hey, suicide by gun is violent. That probably would account for most deaths. I mean really, how's a guy supposed to defend himself when he's the one pointing the gun at him? Maybe he did defend himself by shooting the threat first. (sarcasm)

I forgot, they probably also included those that were shot legally by homeowners and others in self defense.
 
Last edited:

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Hey, suicide by gun is violent. That probably would account for most deaths. I mean really, how's a guy supposed to defend himself when he's the one pointing the gun at him? Maybe he did defend himself by shooting the threat first. (sarcasm)

I forgot, they probably also included those that were shot legally by homeowners and others in self defense.

For that kind of total must have been those shot by police too.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
They had about 25 people there from the camera shot I saw. I think what they should have been called on was the figure of 6000 people killed by gun violence in this state over the last 10 years. From what I've seen of the murder satistics are about 100 people per year so that would be 1000 people over 10 years. The other 5000 must be suicides and a accidents.

Their claims fall right in with all the other special interest groups claims. If all the death statistics put forth by groups like MADD, American Cancer Society and their sub-groups, those against gun violence, etc., etc., are correct, then the entire population of the US is dying off every other year;);)

Just remember, they all are trying to solicit money. Spectacular claims help them, they think.

Also take into consideration that every group often claims the same death. If someone who has cancer, takes lots of painkillers, drinks alcohol, gets in his car and drives down the highway at high speed, shoots himself in the head and the car runs into a minivan killing a family of four, here's how it tallys up.

Cancer = 1
Drugs=1
Alcohol=1
Drunk Driving=1
Speed=1
Gun = 1

So far we are up to 6 "statistic deaths", all for the same incident and there is only ONE body.

Then you get to repeat this for the 4 people in the van that died from a result of all the above.

In the end one could make the statistical claim for a total of 5 deaths for each "causing agent". What's the statistical toll so far? 30?

Now add the fact that the original person might have been smoking and texting on his cell phone. The possibilities for special interest group's death claims are almost endless.

In short, it's all BS and designed for one purpose------Raising money to perpetuate their nonsense (or provide a job for their "spokesperson").
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
It doesn't matter where or how they get their numbers. Those of us on this forum know that numbers can be manipulated to prove whatever you want to prove. The point is they are getting the media coverage, they are getting the attention, and the sheeple believe them. Most people have a tendency (unfortunately) to believe whatever the media tells them. It doesn't do any good to "preach to the choir" here. We need to get our message out as well to counter their lies. I have no ideas right now, but we need to figure out something.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Want to fight back? Come out to the litter patrol this Sunday! Anybody can be a group, stand around and talk about things. Others take action to make the community better.

I would be there if I could. I have to work, and if I want a day off, I have to ask for it 30 days in advance. I will be there in spirit.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
If someone who has cancer, takes lots of painkillers, drinks alcohol, gets in his car and drives down the highway at high speed, shoots himself in the head and the car runs into a minivan killing a family of four, here's how it tallys up.

RIP, but I wonder what some of the manipulated statistical numbers will resemble in the Seal Beach Salon killing.
 
Top