Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
MORE GENERALLY ...
1. I don't own a gun. I am not a hunter or sport shooter, and I feel no need to have one for personal protection.
2. I am a fairly recent mind-switcher from pro-gun control to mostly anti-gun control. Those are shorthand phrases, but the point is that I'm one of those rare birds: an independent kinda guy who actually re-thought this issue after the Connecticut massacre and quite unexpectedly to himself, winds up being against most gun control proposals he's heard of. In particular, I will be voting against background checks for private sales in WA State this fall.
3. I am 1,000% in favor of the so-called "castle doctrine" and so-called "stand your ground." These are bedrock for me, and have been for a long time. But I hadn't thought about it in much detail until after Connecticut. The Zimmerman case had an impact on my thinking, and so did a legislative proposal here in WA State that would've imposed a "duty to retreat" on homeowners whose houses were invaded. Even though I don't own a firearm, I cannot possibly overstate how much that one proposal offended me. I figure I don't have to articulate it any further here because I'd be preaching to a choir.
4. I am theoretically o.k. with magazine capacity limits. Not sure what the number ought to be, and it would have to be carefully crafted so as not to endorse or enable confiscation. Even though I am not a gun owner, what's happening in N.Y. and CA is genuinely worrisome to me as a citizen.
5. I will vote against background checks in WA State for three reasons. First is a general lack of trust (see #3 and the final sentence of #4 above). Second is that the details strike me as vague, overbroad, and lack sunset or appeal provisions. Third is that the specific form of the proposal appears to wind up being a de facto gun registration scheme, which I am very deeply skeptical of.
6. On the broad subject of whether people "should" open carry, I refer everyoneto the Book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 3. Beyond that, I would generally say that, in most places, especially in the city where I spend most of my time, I prefer than firearms be concealed. Not only would I not wish to be immediately and continually reminded of the possibility (no matter how remote) of a shootout, but the more commonplace and familiar guns become, the greater the chance that they wind up in the wrong hands. Also, to the extent that open carry becomes commonplace, it would become casual and even merely "fashionable" to some, decreasing the level of seriousness and "situational awareness" and increasing the chances of tragic outcomes. I don't think it's in the public interest to have guns become part of the daily "vocabulary" of our public life, figuratively speaking, at least not in the big cities. In more rural areas, maybe.
7. Gun control is the archetypal tribal issue in America. As a result, the purer one's views the more likely they are to be accompanied by a stack of sanctimony thick enough to cut with a chain saw. Each side sees the other's self-righteousness but rarely their own. Along those lines, I'd suggest that those who disagree with what I've written try to at least affect civility. In response, I will be taking you seriously, so there'll be no need to shout.
So there you are. Too long of a post, I'm sure.
p.s.: Wow, the Seahawks are really kickin' ass here, huh?
Ahhh, you're the environmentalist posting on the hunting forum.
I'm guessing you are a sophomore at a liberal arts college.
