According to The Seattle Times, on January 16 Lt. Gov. and state senate president Brad Owen (D) announced “the public will no longer be able to openly carry firearms in the state Senate chamber’s public viewing area.” He said: “We’re just noting that open carry is a form of demonstration and it’s not different than carrying a placard or anything else of that nature.”
via Washington Senate Dems Ban Open Carry To Stifle I-594 Protests – Breitbart.
They should go ahead and try to get all types of carry banned from the State. I am sure Shannon Watts will appreciate the effort.
Damn it. It’s why we lose.
Please stop acting like yahoos. Please stop fulfilling the stereotype. Please quit being the exact kind of nutjob everyone says we are.
Crap.
They act like this because it makes them feel good. They aren’t going to stop.
So, if you ‘can’ openly carry firearms, but don’t, the end result is no openly carried firearms in the viewing area.
If you do openly carry firearms in the viewing area, and the pantywaste dems say you can’t do that anymore because it scares us, the end result is no openly carried firearms in the viewing area.
How exactly is the first example superior to the second?
Because some people, including the author of this blog, believe that if exercising your natural, civil, fundamental, individual, Constitutionally-protected rights might offend someone in a position to criticize you and/or illegally infringe that right even more severely than they already do, then you ought not exercise that right. I almost want to write “for the children”, because the argument is so absurd. Of course they’d prefer that we don’t exercise our First Amendment right and criticize their facile argument either.
I am gonna make a comparison that hopefully will illustrate my point with more intensity:
Can you poop? Most certainly
Can You poop anywehere? But yes, of course!
Should you poop anywhere you feel like because you can? Your answer would be yes, which demonstrates that your problem is either incontinence or lack of proper potty training.
Your “comparison” is a false analogy. At least you didn’t resort to name-calling as you did in your headline. Always a classy (and logical) way to argue.
Do you have a Constitutionally-protected inalienable natural right to poop? Or to poop anywhere?
You don’t answer the rebuttal of your unfounded assertion: you claim that if a tyrant does not like your exercise of a fundamental, individual, Constitutionally-protected right, then you should not exercise that right because the tyrant might take measures to illegally restrict your rights even further. Which of course is what the tyrant will do anyway, whether you exercise your currently existing already-restricted rights or not.
You’re apparently one of those people who would have willingly sewed that six-pointed star onto your clothing and voluntarily turned in your firearms upon the Chancellor’s request (because if you didn’t, he might do something “bad”). We all know how that turned out. You may believe that quiet, compliant surrender is the best option, but you certainly haven’t presented anything resembling a logical or coherent argument supporting your claim.
I’m not sure if you understand, how politics works. If you can’t convince your opponent, you convince the undecided. You DONT get people on your side, by freaking them out.
Sorry if that’s too boring for you, gotta go sew on my star!
Right. So according to your “understanding of how politics works” all black people would still be saying “yes, massa”, all women would still be keeping quiet about suggesting they might deserve the right to vote, and all gay people should still be content to be in the closet because in speaking out about their rights they might offend or “freak out” the undecideds. Or are you suggesting that in all those political movements to acquire denied civil rights that no “undecideds” were “freaked out” by those minorities asking for equal legal status?
You’d have undoubtedly sided with the colonists who urged submission when the British just wanted to “regulate” a small amount of gunpowder, because objecting in a forceful way to such confiscation by the legal authorities would have been “bad politics”. Good for you. A large percentage of the colonists believed armed rebellion against the government to be “bad politics”. If you believe that people exercising their pre-existing natural civil rights ought to be curtailed because it might fail to convince the (mostly ignorant of the details of the issues involved except for mainstream media headlines) “undecideds”, then you have already sewn on your star and are wearing it proudly for all to see. That’s good to know.
So George, you don’t like the politics, does that mean what you want is direct action? maybe start shooting people? Assassinating key members of Gun Control groups? Is that what you are looking for? What tingle your nethers & gives you an ebony? Maybe play Tour of Duty for real, with real boolits and see what it feels like? Maybe start a full civil war?
Again, your efforts to provide Aid and Comfort to gun control groups are not appreciated.
Ad hominem. Red herring.
Consider yourself insulted.
OK, now I do have to call you stupid.
OK again in words that you may understand: We are engaged in a fight and it requires the use of different and many strategies to achieve the objective which is the freest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment. Got it? Mostly it comes to the acquisition of political power via votes in our favor at each and every election. If, in order to do so, I need to wear a Panda suit and sing “The Acid Queen,” I will do so as my objective is to win.
Now, many of those votes will come from people who are not in either side of the issue. I know that I will not change the mind of a true member of CSGV or the Brady Campaign, but I still engage them in a discussion for the simple reason I want those in the third group to hear my side of the issue with as much info as possible. That info is called TRUTH and works pretty damn good. It also helps if we act in a manner that does not match the propaganda that the Opposition spews and waving rifles in the chambers of a legislature like a frigging bunch of assholes kinda helps the other side. Yes, image counts like hell. Understand it and Process it.
You like to talk about rights, well get this: You do not have the right to fuck up the hard work many others have done just because you have the need to play Red Dawn. For the idiots in the pictures, the only effort they had to put was to show up dressed as every possible negative gun owner stereotype and act like fools. Many other had put thousands of hours in personal effort and God knows how much money out of their pockets to successfully fight a slick, well-financed Gun Control machine. But your small group of tactical morons have even failed to see that effort and do not have the basic respect that comes from realizing “Gee, maybe these people do know what they are doing as my “No prisoners-No compromise” stance has actually produced zero results.”
Now, other than the name-calling, there is little we can do if your herd keeps trampling around. You have the right to be an asshole under the First Amendment but fortunately does not protect you from be and the rest of us to call you asshole and to stop giving the other side ammunition to win their case. Of course there is always a tipping point when your lending Aid and Comfort to gun control groups ends up in more laws against the Right of the People. It will not be taken kindly.
“Consider yourself insulted.”
Fail on your part. I can’t be “insulted” by your judgments and evaluations. They are meaningless, especially coming from someone who resorts to name-calling rather than rational discourse. Do you really believe that calling people “idiot, asshole, moron, stupid, fool” etc. is a positive presentation that is likely to convince people of your view? You remind me of the prohibitionists who, having neither the facts nor logic on their side, must resort to name-calling as a substitute. You claim that people exercising their legal rights is poor form that might effect our rights, and you use language and rhetorical tactics unlikely to win over those you claim to be addressing. That’s the “image” you have created of yourself. Good job.
“You do not have the right to fuck up the hard work many others have done…”
Of course I do. Does that apply to yourself as well? I’m sure that’s what all the prohibitionists say about you trying to overturn their hard-earned political “gun control” measures. You may not want people to oppose your chosen tactics because of certain beliefs you hold, but you know what, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Anyone can do anything legal, whether you believe it is the correct strategy for your politcal goals or not, and there’s not a legal thing you can do about it… well, of course you can do all the name-calling you want, but there’s nothing you can do that will actually make any difference about people with different views acting on those views. Just like you. Only difference being some of us don’t need to resort to name-calling.
Your self-righteous ranting and apparent lack of self-awareness as to the (lack of) effectiveness of your writing isn’t really helpful to your stated aims. Or maybe it is, and if that is the general mindset of “your group”, then we are all in trouble.
And with that, you have confirmed all our suspicions.
Thanks for playing. Don’t forget to collect your Rice-a-Roni on the way out.
THAT’S your response? That’s the best you can do when confronted with someone with a difference of opinion, other than name-calling, I mean? Why do you think that your view is correct, rather than just your view? Was it handed down to you on some stone tablet, or what? That you have no answer other than profane judgments and evaluations while repeating your personal opinion as if it is fact… well, that’s just sad. Keep sending your money and support to Gottlieb and be sure to let us know when you and he have elected enough legislators to repeal I-594 without compromise.
I guess you don’t even know what a red herring is… and you are so fond of using them… you’ve obviously studied MDA and EFGS well.
Point of order: They can’t do that…at least not without changing the law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290 (the senate is only HALF of the legislature and cannot act unilaterally)
State preemption prevents it: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 (wall of text warning. TLDR: the senate chambers are *NOT* listed as a restricted area)
See also: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.80.010
And to think I’ve always thought, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”, was self explanatory. Hmm.
Apparently, if you show discretion, you’re a quisling, or something.
You have to be macho. You don’t need to be effective or actually get stuff done.