“We’re all looking for answers where law-abiding people can have their constitutional rights to bear arms. The concern is some of the news stories we’ve seen as of late where irresponsible people get hold of a gun and use it to maim and kill—I think everyone is looking for a solution.” – Susan Hutchison in Washington State Proposal to Lower Bar for Gun Seizures Draws Broad Support [via wsj.com]
“Their” rights. Because “they” are separate from you.
Maybe someone can point out to this dipshit that he already had his weapons seized under the existing laws after having been charges with assault multiple times. He just went out and stole someone else’s. See how that works? He was there to off his ex girlfriend and her grandmother it appears. You can take away all of the guns, but as I sit here in North Africa at the moment posting this I know the futility of that. Look up “Bride Burning”.
There’s an obvious solution to the good lady’s problem. Target those who illegally possess or use a firearm in the commission of a crime by imposing harsh, mandatory prison sentences. Felons in possession of a firearm = minimum 15 years without parole. Use of a firearm during a crime = minimum 30 years without parole. Punish the true offenders and deter others without abridging the rights of law abiding citizens.
“Felon in possession of a firearm”? So, you agree that the government should be able to regulate who can and cannot own guns, based on an arbitrary (yes, felonies are now arbitrary, because so much stupid shit has been criminalized to an absurd degree) definition? Yep, because the government is extremely trustworthy, and gun ownership is also not a right, but a privilege granted by the state.
Aim higher. All other things being equal, even though sometimes government is one big fail, anarchy is the worst. That’s the law of the jungle. What decent person wants that?
At the risk of drawing fire, I for one do not want felons to have legal access to arms. It is horrible to advocate such a thing. The founding fathers never had such an idea. It is implicit that responsible, law-abiding persons are the populace they had in mind. Otherwise, why imprison (deny freedoms to) serious law-breakers? If you think differently, put up your evidence.
The classification of ‘felon’ has meant different things at different times to different people; In Georgian England, ‘felony’ crimes included such things as whitewashing a copper penny to make it look like silver, stealing more than a few pence worth of soiled clothing from a clothesline in an enclosed yard, or forgery. Also, ‘Stealing an Heiress.’ These ‘felonies’ also carried the death penalty, often commuted to transportation for life.
Things that rational adults think of as felonies (murder, rape, serious assault, burglary, kidnaping, and so on) are still ‘felonies;’ However, so is building a dam across a stream on your own property to make a pond, draining a swampy area created by a beaver dam or fallen log, spilling a couple gallons of detergent into a storm drain, or making off with over $500 worth of make-up while shoplifting (unarmed).
I agree that REAL ‘felonies’ should carry the loss of some civil rights; However, as every American is subject to committing three felonies PER DAY at the present state of things, I don’t think that Government should have the absolute right to proscribe a ‘felon’ of any stripe from having the means of self-defense.
That is correct. In the US, there used to be way fewer crimes that were defined as actual felonies back in the day. Things such as murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery or arson. And so-called “firearms disabilities” (the legal terminus technicus for the denial of fundamental gun rights by virtue of due process) were largely theoretical problems then because the punishment for all of them used to be death.
But not only are there way more bogus “felonies” today but there’s also the nonsensical mandatory firearms disability provision for “perpetrators” who are sentenced to prison sentences exceeding one year even if it was only for a misdemeanor – and let’s not forget (the specialty!) “domestic violence”. You yelled too lowdly and the neighbors called the cops? Kiss your gun rights goodbye forever. Or think of a single mom of three working multiple jobs trying to make ends meet who cannot afford car insurance and gets caught in a traffic stop. No one’s been hurt and she sure isn’t a violent felon, but hey – the law is the law, right.
Absolutely agree with you, the best way to stop illegal carry and use, proper and immediate consequences.
Someone who went 1/16″ too far in shortening a barrel and got abused by the ATF would be a “felon in possession.” Are you suggesting that he not only should have his right to self-defense violated but also spend an additional 15 years locked up? Are you that evil and nasty a person? Shame on you.
This is actually a reply to Doug, whose comment lacks a “reply” button.
Please take a closer look. We already have anarchy: it is govt anarchy. That is not a contradiction in terms. It is very common for people in positions of power in govt to ignore the laws that purport to limit their power, and to prohibit abusive wielding of that power. They get to do as they please to whom they please with no consequences, yet they use the system of laws they flout to persecute and penalize the rest of us. Seeing as this sort of anarchy is already the environment we live in, I want in on it so I can defend myself properly.
Oh good grief. I am talking about bank robbers, murderers, kidnappers and rapists and so forth. Things normal people would think of as constituting felonies. That is what I am talking about.
You hijack the term if you want to redefine it as Les Miserables who stole bread or something and got caught by Javert. I agree with you that injustice exists. It needs correction, lest it become the norm. It is still however, not the norm.
So you’re looking for a solution where you let us have our Constitutionally protected civil rights? Well gee wizz…hope you find that solution and allow us our rights.
Keep pushing you fascist idiots and we will provide the solution for you.
And if we don’t vote for demwits, will they still “allow us” to have our God-given rights, embraced by our, apparently not their, Constitution?
Your solution is immigration reform.
You’re welcome.
News flash lady. People killed and maimed each other long before guns. They will long after guns. There is no solution, so get strapped and be willing to fight like hell to defend your life.
“The concern is some of the news stories we’ve seen as of late where irresponsible people get hold of a gun and use it to maim and kill—I think everyone is looking for a solution.”
I wouldn’t be searching for a solution, so much as sending the solution in the form of a 147gr HP.
It’s appropriate to talk about the Washington government wanting to make it easier to seize firearms. Just got the word about the mall shooter in Seattle, Washington.
Arcan Cetin, Turkish immigrant, that moved here with his mother after she married an american military man. The initial reports is that he’s a muslim that supports Hillary for president, supposedly from his face book page.
Burlington is around seventy miles north of Seattle.
. . . where there’s (likely) another patch of radicalized muslims.
Related to the silly belief that you can have your cake and eat it too. In the long history of the world, man made “laws” have never once prevented evil from taking place. The only law that actually can prevent such evil is the one written on most human hearts – the law of non-aggression. Self defense is the only answer to those who prefer to harm others.
THIS!
Yes sir!
Ma’am.
Let’s not go all Target here.
There are considerably more irresponsible people who get hold of a Koran and kill lots of people. And where is her concern?
Irresponsible is not following the four safety rules. Criminal is shooting people because your religion or gang tells you to. I just thought I’d contrast the two labels for you Susan because words matter.
Over simplify things much?
Personal responsibility includes a lot more than that, Dan. Responsibility involves making reasoned decisions and actually accepting the consequences for all actions, especially those which affect others. Criminal actions that actually harm others are a departure from personal responsibility. And not all such irresponsibility – criminal action has anything to do with religion or social status. Many people thought to be “religious” and exemplary “citizens,” wind up being thieves or criminals.
The “gang” as a source of criminals is disingenuous, at best. Many are composed of evil people, sure, but many others are not. I know a “gang” of old timers, retired from all walks of life, who congregate most mornings in a local coffee shop to discuss and “solve” the problems of the world. I don’t think any of them are criminals. 🙂
Remove your crooked finger from in front of my proverbial face. It would appear that you have misunderstood the blog, my comment, or both. I was referencing the quote, as well as pointing out the fact that irresponsibility does not equate a criminal behavior. Did I mention anyone talking about problems and solutions and NOT shooting someone like I thought that was a crime? I would kindly ask you to read the quote again, read my comment again, and then STFU.
Thank you Dan in Co … I was going to say the EXACT same thing.
Irresponsible behavior is foolish and unsafe.
Irresponsible behavior is NOT intentionally going out to kill someone: that is CRIMINAL behavior.
I find your words to be irresponsible Mrs. Hutchinson, but since there is no irresponsible clause in the Bill of Rights you are free to say it. Isn’t that awesome!?!?!
How would have stopped the recent Mall shooter here illegally from Turkey who had been arrested 5 times for assault and domestic violence and each time let go BUT still was able to get a gun?
And what if he’d used a bomb, a flamethrower, or poison gas?
Having a criminal history and/or having a gun is only a small part of the overall problem: A place filled with people who are conditioned to be helpless victims…
Maybe they should just ban maiming and killing? Trying to keep them from getting guns or baseball bats or kitchen knives seems like nibbling around the corners. Just ban maiming and killing and be done with it already.
I miss the days when killers were called killers, murderers, serial killers, etc. Back then (not so long ago) we focused on the individual person as the problem and not the tools they used.
Surround any reasonable person with loaded firearms for any length of time and that person will not be maimed or killed.
Introduce one psycho or criminal to the mix, and it’s guaranteed someone will be hurt or killed.
Simple as that.
Restricting the 2nd amendment and making it harder for the law abiding to defend themselves because you are refusing to acknowledge murder is a people problem, not a tool problem should be a crime all it’s own. That should be an accessory charge.
Here’s the Progressive Progression of Pheelgood on Crime.
1. Reformation. We should nicer to the criminals, give them what they want and reduce penalties: maybe they’ll see how nice we are and reform.
2. Creation. We should reduce the access and exposure to weapons: maybe they won’t become criminals in the first place and turn to violence and obtain or use them.
3. Isolation and Abdication. We should move to somewhere else where it’s safer: maybe the criminals won’t come looking for us.
If only I had accepted these (as millions of other voters do), I could have spared myself getting soaked in the rain (by wishing it away), instead I opened my umbrella, foolish me. I guess I’ll never be a progressive [and proud of it].
It all comes down to this:
The belief that words will stop evil people from doing evil things.
Well, children have been debunking this for a while with:
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
The adults in the world that live in reality are arming up. You know, the stick and stone part. Because we know words and laws don’t stop criminals and crazies.
Anyone that believes laws stop criminals and crazies has no place in office.
Control the law-abiding serfs, if only because the overseers just don’t trust us. Does anyone with more than a brain steam think that criminals and nut jobs give a damn about gun control (lefty hacks call them safety) laws?
I love how he was an illegal immigrant, arrested 5 times for serious charges. Apparently, not once deported, nor incarcerated for an extended stay. If anything else failed this many times, we’d call it a lemon and dispose of it. This is what people should be upset about; if the justice system worked, the availability of legal firearms to legal owners wouldn’t even be a question. Some things are made broke; they are either not repairable or worth the effort.
Why didn’t we cull the bad elements of society is the main issue and solution.
Second to that and as important is we actually get a chance to defend ourselves. Otherwise they will just use another weapon.
Also worth noting is he did not give a damn about your laws. Gun was his without an MBC and he did it in a GFZ.
The press is reporting
that he has legal, permanent resident status.
Well as soon as you can work out a solution that stops criminals from getting guns without stopping non-criminals from getting guns we’ll pay attention.
They’ve been doing the same “elect us so we can DO things to, I mean for, you.” If it hasn’t worked 40,000 times, then gun control only needs to be tried 40,001 times; uh, 40,002 uh, 40,003 (ad infinitum, Einstein’s definition of insanity).
This legislator is looking for a way to stop all citizens from being capable of breaking the law.
In other words, she wants to be the parent who childproofs the house. You, citizens of Washington, are the children.
While the “useful fools” may believe in “common sense gun laws” to stop gun violence, their leaders (masters) know the real reason for more gun laws has nothing to do with crime and criminals. It has everything to do with disarming the citizen population so they cannot resist the illegal actions of the government.
Congress is certainly not resisting the unconstitutional activities of the government. At some point someone else will have to resist or the American Constitutional Republic will be lost…..if it not already too late.
Be Prepared!
And what, pray tell, is the solution to pressure cooker misuse?
The solution is 27 words, 240 years ago…the 2nd amendment used in lawful self-defense. ANYTHING less is our government allowing rape, murder and assault.
Mind boggling that our elected representatives know criminals exist do get armaments, yet do not advocate citizens protecting themselves from them.
“We’re all looking for answers where law-abiding people can have their constitutional rights to bear arms. The concern is some of the news stories we’ve seen as of late where irresponsible people get hold of a gun and use it to maim and kill—I think everyone is looking for a solution.”
How about don’t focus on the guns & pay attention to “irresponsible people.”
Maybe broaden the focus a bit, to irresponsible people maiming and killing, regardless of how they do it.
Unfortunately, Susan Hutchison is the Washington State Republican chairperson.
I would have expected her to be better informed on Second Amendment issues and get the facts straight on incidents involving firearms. Apparently, she didn’t.
I worked with Susan for a few years. I was never really impressed with her…
“I think everyone is looking for a solution.”
Well lady it seems more like your looking for an opportunity to advance your agenda while other people are riled up in order to avoid rational discussion of the issue.
For starters, stop disarming the responsible. But no, you’ll do everything but, dipwit.
We are all looking for solutions to lots of things. Like people who vote for human garbage piles. And people that adhere to murderous ideologies.
Maybe we should just setup a government where the governed only have rights that are convenient. That’s a solution.
We’re looking for a solution to Washington State too.
As much as we hate jihadi’s, they were invited by the evil (D) in the State of Washington, lets hope they’re not there to thin out opposition to the (D).