Tag Archives: Gun Control

Only because government is too big

Why do people care so passionately about politics these days? When I was a child in the ’60s, my parents didn’t seem to care much about politics and neither did any of their friends. To this day I have no idea what my parents’ political views were, because they never talked politics, but I guarantee you that all my daughters are aware of my views. Well aware. Why are people now willing break off friendships and disown family members over political candidates?

A poll released by the APA in February found that over half of the respondents indicated that the political climate was a source of stress.

David Wasserman, writing at FiveThirtyEight, opines about the the death of purple America, those areas where political contests are decided by single-digit margins, but doesn’t speculate as to why. He concludes:

In an increasing number of communities like Baldwin County, Alabama, which gave Trump 80 percent of its major-party votes, and San Mateo, California, which gave Clinton 80 percent, an entire generation of youth will grow up without much exposure to alternative political points of view. If you think our political climate is toxic now, think for a moment about how nasty politics could be 20 or 30 years from now.

There’s a simple answer: Government is too big.

government is too big political cartoons

Take the case of Melissa and Aaron Klein. If those names don’t sound familiar, would it help if I had just called them the Oregon bakers? I’m guessing it would. Or how about the Kennewick, Washington, florist, Baronelle Stutzman? In both cases, Christian small business owners exercising their right to freedom of religion found themselves at odds with the government. The government may pay lip service to freedom of religion, but in practice, it’s treated as freedom of worship, so please keep your icky religion inside the four walls of your church where it belongs, thank you very much.

Property owners aren’t faring any better. Back in 2015, we heard about Andy and Katie Johnson, a Wyoming couple who built a pond on their 8-acre farm. Even though the pond became a haven for wildlife, the EPA found them to be in violation of a water rule that claims authority over every drop of water in the country. Have a puddle on your property? Yep, theirs. At the time this story broke, the Johnsons had been fined over $16 million. To sum that up, EPA  bureaucrats wrote a rule giving themselves the authority to ruin a farmer for improving his property.

Mike and Chantell Sackett found themselves in a similar situation with the EPA, except in their case they meddled with a wetland rather than creating one. Does is seem as though property owners just can’t win?

Gun and ConstitutionThe assault on 2nd Amendment rights is never-ending. I’m sure that gun control advocates keep hammering away in the hope that everyone else will cede their rights just to shut them up. Here in Washington State, every legislative session sees the introduction of new and varied gun control bills. And when the proposed legislation is so far out there that it can’t even pass out of committee, someone writes it up as an initiative and puts it on the ballot, confident that King County will bring home the win. It’s now possible in Washington to be stripped of your right to own firearms before you’re even aware any action has been taken against you.

The number of federal regulations is growing at truly astonishing rate and along with it, as Glenn Reynolds tells us, is the number of regulatory crimes. There’s no way for individuals to avoid running afoul of them because, as Reynolds points out, they’re often counter-intuitive.

Government at every level has intruded into our daily lives to such an extent that it’s no longer possible to adopt the casual apathy of my parents. Bureaucrats are like party crashers at a wedding reception. No one knows who they are or where they came from, but there they are, eating up your life savings and telling you that you should have done things differently or believed differently or understood your rights differently.

Politics has morphed into a high stakes game. When the government is big enough to ruin your business, devalue your property, bankrupt you or deprive you of your clearly stated constitutional rights, it’s no wonder people are passionate.


Thanks to Jon Gabriel for getting my thought process moving on this post.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

More on I-1491

I happened to come across this website that examines and rejects I-1491 from the perspective of a mental health advocate. You should still vote NO.

Know 1491

Leave a comment

Filed under Constitution, Washington

Vote NO on Initiative 1491

Washington State readers, if you take your constitutional rights seriously; if you believe that no one should be deprived of their rights without due process; if you consider yourself to be an advocate for civil liberties, please vote NO on Initiative 1491.

Under I-1491, a judge can, at the request of “family and household members” (ironically, household members need not actually live with you…more about this later), issue an order depriving you of your constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, the individual to be deprived of their right to bear arms need not even be notified in advance that any action is being taken.

Consider this from Washington Arms Collectors:

“A woman, stalked by a violent ex-husband, attends a handgun class, obtains a Concealed Pistol License, and purchases a handgun – all to defend her and their children. The stalker realizes that he is now in danger if he follows, confronts, assaults her or invades her home. He sends a petition to the court, stating that his ex-wife has threatened him, that during a recent argument she brandished a firearm, and that she owns a gun and has taken training in its use. The stalker provides proof to the court of the acquisition of a firearm. He also knows of his wife’s visits to a psychologist during their divorce proceedings and in his petition discloses the medications she is on and alleges that she is mentally unstable and a danger to her, their children and him. The allegations are serious enough that the court, without a hearing, issues an ‘ex parte* extreme risk protection order’ that orders the woman to surrender her firearms. The first time that the stalking victim knows of the process that is being used to disarm her is when is when the local police show up at her door to deliver notice, search her home and seize her firearms.

With the help of the courts, this victim has been made helpless.”

Forget due process. Forget your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Forget any quaint notions you may have about being innocent until proven guilty. Forget the old saying about having nothing to fear from the courts if you’ve done nothing wrong.

The progressive group, Alliance for Gun Responsibility is, predictably, supporting this initiative by distributing questionable “facts” and statistics. For example, they cite a study by the equally progressive Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, that claims dozens of lives have been saved by “similar” legislation in Connecticut. That’s super, but unless you live in a Minority Report world, where it can be known in advance that a particular act is certain to happen (and we know how that turned out in the movie), any claims of lives saved has to be pure speculation.

Furthermore, while some may say that the Connecticut legislation is similar to I-1491, it differs in at least one significant way. The Connecticut law requires an independent investigation on the part of local law enforcement before a person can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights; I-1491 requires only the say-so of the aforementioned family or household member.

Just exactly who are these family and household members? Aside from the people you would normally expect, I-1491 also includes a “person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year.”

 

Say, for example, you need a roommate, so a friend of a friend moves into your spare room. Your new roommate quickly falls behind on his share of the rent and utilities and, eventually, you ask him to move out. Several months later, the deadbeat roommate still owes you money. Angry over your efforts to collect, the ex-roommate files a petition with the court for an extreme risk protection order, stating that you own at least two handguns, drink heavily on the weekends, that you’ve been harassing him over a bogus claim for money and recently threatened him. The judge agrees that you’re a threat and issues an ex parte order to deprive your of your firearms. And just like the helpless woman in the hypothetical situation above, you’re none the wiser until the police show up to confiscate your firearms.

When this legislation was introduced to the State Legislature in 2015, it never passed out of committee. Why, you ask? Because even the liberal gun grabbers in Olympia could see that it was deeply flawed. First, as already mentioned (yes, I’m beating a drum, here), an extreme risk protection order can be issued before the respondent is even aware that any complaint has been filed.

Second, there is very little downside for a person who maliciously files a petition. There’s no filing fee and the penalty clause  is weak; in the event of a malicious petition, the respondent bears the cost and burden of seeking redress.

Next, the legislation requires only a preponderance of evidence in order for an ERPA to be issued, meaning that the judge need be only 51% sure that the facts alleged in the petition true. This is a laughably low standard to use in order to strip a person of his constitutional rights.

To be clear, I can understand the motivation behind this piece of legislation. Take the story about the woman above, and turn it around to have her seeking protection from her violent, gun toting ex-husband. It seems like the legislation proposed in I-1491 would be tailor made to protect her. Not so, according to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

If a person is truly dangerous, existing law already provides a variety of mechanisms to deal with the individual, all of which can lead to firearm prohibitions in appropriate cases.  Depending on the circumstances, these can include arrest, followed by pretrial detention or release on bond with conditions and monitoring; restraining or no-contact orders; or emergency mental health evaluations and commitments.

The issuance of an ERPO does not do anything to deal with the underlying cause of dangerousness, nor does it subject the person to any actual physical restraint, ongoing reporting or monitoring requirements, or treatment for any underlying mental health condition.  Initiative 1491 will be ineffective as it targets the tools but not the problem.

If a dangerous person is committed, he gets treatment. If he is arrested, he might be detained pretrial or at least monitored and subject to reporting requirements while on pretrial release. Nothing happens, however, to a person with an ERPO except the seizure of the person’s firearms (if he is known to have any) and listing in a prohibited person database.  Under I-1491, the person is left free to carry out any harmful designs by any means at his or her disposal, including the illegal acquisition of additional firearms.

I have not provided an exhaustive list of reasons here why I-1491 deserves to be voted down in November. I strongly encourage you to read both linked articles and ask yourself why progressives are pushing such a deeply flawed and anti-civil rights piece of legislation. While I’m sure they do want to save lives, it seems ironic that many of the same people who support this shameful assault on the 2nd and 5th Amendments also support abortion on demand and assisted suicide. This leaves me to draw the conclusion that they may be just as interested in depriving as many citizens as possible of their firearms as they are in improving gun safety.


As a side note, what is it with liberals anyway? They accuse conservatives of waging a war on women; they mock us by saying we want women to be barefoot and pregnant, but the truth is that liberals want women to be helpless and they want that helplessness codified into law.

*An ex parte judicial proceedings are conducted for the benefit of only one party; the other party is specifically excluded from the proceedings.

4 Comments

Filed under Constitution, Washington

And Here Is What I Love About Rand Paul

He is fearless in speaking the truth as he understands it…without the Crazy Uncle Harry vibe I always got from his dad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Washington

Irony Upon Irony

Piers MorganPiers Morgan thinks it’s ironic that there’s a campaign to deport him for exercising his right to free speech under the 1st Amendment

I think it’s ironic that Piers Morgan claims 1st Amendment protection in his campaign to strip law-abiding, actual citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

4 Comments

Filed under Washington

Cat-Free Zone

Cat-free at last; cat-free at last; cat-free at last!

As the mice celebrated a new life of freedom and safety….

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Shouldn’t The White House Be A Gun-Free Zone?

Shouldn't the White House be a gun-free zone?

The First Family deserves our best efforts to keep them safe.

Update:  Oh, look here; it appears someone took this thought straight to the White House.

I mean, really. If the best way to keep vulnerable children safe at school is to designate schools as gun-free zones, shouldn’t the First Family live in a gun-free bubble?

Oh, I know that John Doe can’t carry a firearm into the White House, but what about all those Secret Service agents milling about the place? They have guns! And what about those Marines? Do you suppose they’ve checked their weapons at the door? I think not! It’s a scandal, really, how cavalier we are with the First Family’s safety!

Does that sound silly to you? I certainly hope so, yet that is the favored strategy of the American Liberal for protecting the nation’s school children…unless they are lucky enough to attend school with Sasha and Malia Obama.

Before [Sasha and Malia] go to their first day in their new school, the Secret Service will run background checks on the school’s staff and maybe some of the students and their families. Agents will accompany the girls to and from school every day. They may, depending on space, set up a small command center inside the building. If not, they’ll set one up outside. They may tap into the school’s closed-circuit camera system if there is one. 

How many agents will be assigned to the girls? “The appropriate number to get the job done,” according to my still secretive friend, Agent Alswang.

If gun-free zones are so safe, why all the fuss?

What about the President himself? Yes, he’s the most powerful man in the world and surely, very, very important, but is he more precious to us as a people than our children? (Note: If your answer is yes, please reassess your priorities.) I can say without hesitation, I would rather see a President dead – no matter who is sitting in the White House – than 20 six and seven-year-olds. At least those who choose to run for President know what they’re getting into.

My point here isn’t to say that the First Family needs less security; I’m saying that our nation’s schools need more. People who object to well-screened, well-trained, armed school personnel because they don’t want their children exposed to guns are living in a fantasy world where guns are malevolent beings in their own right and a gun-free zone sign extends magical protection to all who enter those hallowed halls.

If the events that unfolded in Newtown, Connecticut, last Friday haven’t disabused those magical thinkers of the idea that gun-free zones are anything other than killing zones, then nothing will; they should be ignored as unserious on this issue.

Doesn’t our nation’s most precious resource, our children, deserve the best protection we can provide? If so, arming school personnel should be considered as one part of the answer.


Thank you, John Hawkins, for two links today.

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, In The News, Politics

Bob. Just. Stop. Talking.

Please. Because I don’t really have time for all this writing.

You’re so close to the truth, here, Bob (can I call you Bob?), but you’re blinded by your anti-gun bias.

“Give me one example of an athlete — I know it’s happened in society — but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of his having a gun, took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better. I can’t think of a single one. But sadly, I can think of dozens where by virtue of having a gun, a professional athlete wound up in a tragic situation.”

Getting back to the idea that you’re a moron, how can you speak those words and not understand what you’re saying? Let me break it down for you.

  1. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  2. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.
  3. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  4. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.

Do you see where I’m going with this? You’re not talking about a problem with the “gun culture”, whatever it is that you mean by that, Bob, and you’re not talking about a problem with the law-abiding general population. You’re talking about a problem with the pro sports culture.  And when I say “pro sports,” I’m mainly talking about football today and I’m including D1 college ball.

Now, there are many, many fine, law-abiding, upstanding individuals playing pro sports and this post specifically does not refer to them; unfortunately there are also a substantial number who take their own press too seriously. They’ve been pampered, coddled and told they’re special…some of them since before they entered high school. It’s not hard to imagine how they come to feel entitled to special treatment. They indiscriminately father illegitimate children, some of them in numbers that would be comic if it weren’t so tragic. Then, they mock Tim Tebow for declining to join them in their bad behavior.

They’ve not been made to face the consequences of their own actions. A case in point? Jerramy Stevens, a man who should have been in jail for assault but instead was playing football, on “scholarship” (and don’t even get me started on that), at the University of Washington, where he committed rape, but instead of serving time, was drafted by the Seattle Seahawks. And who, a decade later, is still behaving badly.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is not my idea of a healthy sub-culture. And, Bob, you project it onto the larger population. Now you think we need to have a conversation about guns and easy access to guns. I disagree. I don’t think that law-abiding citizens should have to accept, or even consider, any more infringements on their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Maybe it is time, though, to have a conversation about the pro sports culture and how it contributes to producing infantile men-children who blunder about like malicious Baby Hueys, unaware of their own potential for causing harm, requiring ever increasing amounts of supervision to keep them from harming themselves and those around them.

And that’s a conversation where I think you could add some value, Bob.

2 Comments

Filed under Washington

Bob Costas Still Wrong on Gun Control

Bob Costas laments the fact that he broke his own rule about not commenting on nuanced topics unless there’s enough time to “flesh them out.” Sadly, given more time to discuss his thoughts on gun control, he is still wrong.

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

 Isn’t that special? Bob doesn’t want to see the Second Amendment repealed. Good for him! But it appears that he may not be fully aware of the actual wording of said amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Bob doesn’t think we need any pesky militias, but that would seem to be the very intent of the authors of the Second Amendment. A wise person once wrote, “Whether or not the ‘framers of the Constitution’ envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the ‘the security of a free state.’ Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned citizens as being well armed according to the standard of the day.”

Sorry, Bob…keep spinning.

1 Comment

Filed under Washington

40 Logic-Based Reasons To Ban Guns

Just one example of a factual, logical liberal argument that is so hard to refute.

No one is more committed to logic and reason than the American Liberal. Take the debate about guns, for example. Who could possibly refute these extremely logical points?

  1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
  2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
  3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
  4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
  5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
  7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
  10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
  12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
  13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
  14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
  15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
  16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
  17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
  18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940′s, 1950′s and 1960′s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
  19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
  20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
  23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
  25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
  26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
  27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
  28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
  30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
  36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
  37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
  38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
  39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
  40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

I’d love to credit the author of this list but it’s been kicking around the internet, I’ve been told, for at least a decade, it’s hard to say who that may have been. Likewise, I haven’t checked the current accuracy of any of the factual statements.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Politics