Seattle mayor goes crazy

coolhandluke

coolhandluke

Active member
This week the Seattle mayor signed an executive order banning "dangerous weapons" on all City-owned property. Only exception being "guns issued to law enforcement personnel".

This was his reaction to a recent incident at the Folklife festival where a firearm carried by a CCW permit holder was discharged in an accidental / non-justifiable shooting. Out of all of the people in the US who LEGALLY own and carry a firearm, how often does this happen? Until someone proves otherwise, I will state that this is a very isolated incident statistically. Heart disease and cancer combine for more than a million American deaths per year.

Instead of a practical solution (your suggestion here).......the mayor presents a knee-jerk reaction that tramples rights of law-abiding citizens. This isn't just banning "dangerous weapons" from music festivals, the steps of the Seattle Public Library, or city-owned parks..........it is ALL city-owned property. I searched but could not find a map showing every nook and cranny of Seattle that is city-owned. This ban also includes CCW permit holders.

Even if you don't believe citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, surely the manner in which the mayor went about this would slightly make you mad. Remember how pissed everyone gets over Bush's executive orders that overstep all the checks and balances of our political system? Same manner. The mayor completely overstepped his bounds by not allowing this to go to ballot so those who live within the city limits could vote (have their say)...nor did he allow the city council (elected representatives of said people within city limits) have their say. He just made an executive order and gave all his departments 30 days to figure out how to enforce his idea.

He tried to make it sound justifiable by stating in his executive order that city ordinances relating to firearms "are consistent with state law". Which is complete bullshit. A CCW permit holder can legally carry on property owned by the state......but no longer on property owned by the city. How is that "consistent"?

An executive order is for emergency use only....not unlimited use....as it gets a free pass over any approval by anyone else. But does any politician follow that rule?

 
well im going on a trip there in a few weeks. well i feel safer but yes your mayor is dumb.
 
as much as i belive gun violence is all that is wrong in the world, the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights guarantees the right to bear arms. this thing is def. going to the courts and should get repealed. dumbass thinks he can fuck with the founding fathers.... madison is fucking turning in his grave
 
you feel safer? how so? Cause all the bad guys will put there guns down? Or just all the people who will shoot the bad guys that come to shoot you? I can't understand how thinking that banning guns is a reasonable solution to violence. Its not like criminals will be at all affected by this, the only thing it does is keep guns away from people defending themselves
 
maybe if you guys got your heads out of your asses and you saw how retarded it is that people can walk around with conceled weapons there would allready be legislation out that would prevent conceled weapons in public places. Then the mayor who any sane person should be proud of wouldn't have to make an executive order.
 
ok well here is my view on gun control. hand guns are just stupid to own for personal use. for real if you hunt with a hand gun youre a moron. if you carry one for protection are you just carrying it to protect yourself from someone else trying to protect themselves? i mean how many people really use them in a bad manner?

and also i feel that when someone does carry around a gun for protection they are a self dignified. they have the gun so why not use it? they are more likely to pull out the gun in circumstances which are inappropriate for gun use. like if someone comes up and says give me your wallet in a public place. should you pull out your gun? hell no you scream get away from me.

also another little interesting fact is that more household members were killed with guns by other members of the household than home intruders.
 
two major points the most recent posters are missing:

1. the unchecked power of executive orders. it doesn't matter your position on this issue, it still sucks. why couldn't he ask the Seattle City Council to vote? why couldn't he ask the citizens he "represents" to vote? certain issues simply cannot bypass our system of checks and balances.

2. the issue of the present day interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is currently being debated by the Supreme Court. why couldn't the mayor wait for the highest court in the land to decide?
 
Although I know everyone american republicanish person on this site will hate me and my karma will be lowered, I will say it anyway:

I think the mayor is taking a great step in controlling firearms. I praise his actions on this issue, no matter what the american constitution says. He has my approval!
 
That is dumb. Why take guns away from law abiding citizens? Then the only people with guns will be even more power crazed cops and black people.
 
I agree that even law-abiding citizens could take out guns at inappropriate times. But then again, seems like the best place to mug people now is the city where no citizen is allowed to carry a weapon...
 
way to not actual read about whats really going on. excessive use of executive orders undermine the american political system.

also the executive order states "dangerous weapons, including firearms" are to be banned from all city property. an automobile is a dangerous weapon, an HIV-positive penis is a dangerous weapon, the mind of a politician is a dangerous weapon.

also you said "i praise his actions on the issue, no matter what the american constitution says"...........really? the constitution was enacted for a reason.
 
point taken.

i'm just expressing which way i would vote given the chance. and i feel like the second amendment gives the right for people to bear arms but not on public property. am i wrong? cause im not sure. and that wasnt sarcastic.
 
^ no i see what you're saying. i didn't want this to become a firearm-oriented thread because that'll just lead to useless squabble and dumb postings from all viewpoints.

i'd much rather have the citizens within seattle city limits vote and pass the ban rather than the mayor deciding whats best for everyone else.

i think politicians should get a finger or toe lopped off everytime they sign an executive order or presidential pardon. then maybe they'll save them for the truly important issues and not sign all kinds of crazy executive orders (bush) or pardon all kinds of criminals the last day in office (clinton).
 
Yup, I'm from Seattle, people get shot here constantly, its best if you just keep to Utah, their snow is better anyways.
 
haha such a good picture

1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg
 
God you redneck east of the mountains republicans just want to bring your tree killing humvees and shotguns to kill our squirrels and destroy our environment.... I jokes, but seriously ive spent 14 hours today working on a research paper, I think Im going to shoot myself. Ahh fuck Im on city property actually, well maybe sir Nickels will ban guns to help prevent library suicides. Actually please ban huge papers, oh god im losing it~
 
Just think for a minute...how is a gun going to stop you from getting mugged? If the mugger has a gun, then what are you going to do? You are gonna risk your life and try to pull your own gun out, over probably less than 100 bucks of cash? I know its a ban on all weapons, but lets face it, no one is gonna be bitching about not being able to carry nunchuks around

I wish guns had never been invented and we still used swords. A fatass redneck can use a gun, but I would cut him to ribbons in a swordfight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top