Posted on 12/25/2009 7:19:19 AM PST by marktwain
First it was Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat suggesting that firearms ownership should be regulated like driving and car ownership, and now the newspaper’s editorial page has blamed the “Second Amendment crowd” for “some responsibility” in the shooting of two Pierce County sheriffs’ deputies. The editorial also mentions the slaying of four Lakewood police officers, a vicious crime perpetrated by a career thug who got leniency from a governor and at least one Pierce County judge. There is nothing in the Times editorial about how two dead gunmen – David Crable and Maurice Clemmons – were able to skate through the court system when they should have been behind bars. It’s easier to demonize the “Second Amendment crowd,” because that sort of editorial bigotry is gleefully acceptable by far too many in the Times’ reading audience. The Times argues that “sensible gun legislation should be welcome in Olympia” without clearly defining what that means. Are we talking about registration of guns, or licensing of gun owners? That seems to be where Westneat was headed.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
For the radical left, “sensible gun legislation” simply means the confiscation of all firearms and the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Of course most falsely claim otherwise, but this is the true goal.
They should probably make murdering someone a crime.
Well, if it is blame to be placed, I suggested the blamee carry out a sentence. Oh, boy, that would swift and thorough, and about .25 a bullet. Of course a rope could be recycled for a really “green” solution to crime.
Because nobody drives without a license or steals cars.
Like the Austrailian Socialists. Register the confiscate.
There was an interesting article posted last night on FR. It said that while guns sales under Obama have increased over 30% the murder rate is down over 10%.
I wonder if a perp is killed during a robbery attempt does it count towards the murder or homicide rate?
“sensible gun legislation should be welcome in Olympia”
The only ‘sensible’ thing to do is to permit CCW...it has been proven to work, time after time...
The funny part of that quote is that there are no regulations on the purchase of automobiles. Anybody can walk into a dealership and purchase a car regardless of age, criminal history, license status, etc. All they have to have is the cash in hand.
Registration, license plates, a driver’s license, etc. are only required if the car is going to be driven on a public roadway.
If they seriously want to regulate guns like cars then they would remove all restrictions on their purchase unless the purchaser fires it on a public shooting range.
That would mean any State gun license would be good in all 50 states, you could take it anywhere, buy as many as you like, and buy guns as powerful as you like, all without any Federal paperwork at all.
This doesn't mean I endorse 'licensing' gun owners because I don't. One shouldn't need a license to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed Right.
People that want guns treated like driving obviously haven’t been to a Washington State DMV. Half the people in there are illegals trading in licenses from states that make it easy to get a license. No questions asked, here is your Washington license.
Clearly the national socialist democrat gun grabbers will try to incrementally eviscerate our rights as far as they can push it before going for the holy grail of confiscation.
Watch them try restricting our rights with secret watch lists that you end up on without due process.
And watch them try to get a hand in every gun sale transaction to build a registration system.
All the while Lying to us that they respect or right to self-defense.
He ought to think a little harder before trying analogies. First of all "driving and car ownership" isn't regulated. You can purchase a car with cash, and as long as you're on your own property, you don't have to register or insure it, and you don't even need a license to drive it. It's no more regulated than buying a camera or a loaf of bread.
Now it's true, if you drive on socialized roads, you have to have a license, but that brings me to a pet peeve of mine. Why, when comparing regulation of auto transportation with guns, is it always assumed that the auto case is the better one, and we'd be well to restrict guns similarly? We, who like rights, as opposed to sheeple that are afraid of them, could just as easily make the argument that since guns aren't regulated in some of the same ways that driving is, that means driving is over-regulated and that therefore the government should get back in it's little box.
We.... could just as easily make the argument that since guns aren't regulated in some of the same ways that driving is, that means driving is over-regulated and that therefore the government should get back in it's little box.
Hey !, I am really liking that line of thinking, And I am really glad you still are (thinking)
Okay, bad joke, but that's a good idea none the less.
The only place driving rules apply to driving is on roads provided by the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.