Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile
On Christmas Eve, The Seattle Times editorial board called for new gun laws [“A region reels again,” Opinion, editorial, Dec. 24].
It stated: “Every time a state lawmaker attempts to tighten a gun rule or change a law, the Second Amendment crowd goes bonkers. They bear some responsibility for what is happening because of a never-give-an-inch stance on gun policy.”
I am a responsible gun owner.
Every time the Democrats propose a new gun law to make us safer, they want to restrict my right to own, use or posses firearms or ammunition. I would support making it harder for criminals to get and use guns, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
But whenever we give them an inch, they try to take a mile. Banning my firearms will not make any of us safer, unless you are a criminal, deer or paper target.
Dumb laws only encourage lawbreaking. Most gun owners are very suspicious of any new gun laws and most of us will not comply with foolish gun registrations or bans.
— Ken Kissinger, Covington
Safety at the expense of liberty
Responding to the recent tragic shootings of our police officers, Rep. Ross Hunter, Sen. Adam Kline and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles will introduce a bill banning the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington [“Ban on some gun sales sought,” NWThursday, Dec. 17].
These legislators are referring to firearms accurately known as AR-15s, often confused with fully-automatic military assault rifles. This proposed bill seeks to gain safety at the expense of liberty, rather than addressing the revolving door that is our justice system.
Kohl-Welles asked, “Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?” No, probably not.
They likely envisioned the single-shot flintlocks of the day, yet should today’s civilians be limited to owning only antiquated flintlocks? I think not.
And shouldn’t she also be proposing bans on semi-automatic hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns, rather than only on those rifles that resemble the military’s rifles? She is proposing a ban on firearms based on appearance — absurd.
She said she doesn’t believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, yet she proposes restrictions where the framers of the Constitution did not.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
— Eric M. Page, Bothell
Common link to recent police attacks is clear
Danny Westneat’s column on our culture that embraces gun ownership [“Good enough for guns, not wheels,” NWWednesday, Dec. 23] resonates with so much common sense that hardly any more can be added, except to note it was exceptionally well thought out.
It is beyond me how we got to the point that any attempt to put some reasonable limits and accountability to gun ownership is deemed outrageous.
Even in the Old West, towns could ask people to check their guns in at the sheriff’s office and pick them up when they leave. Now we get up in arms when an attempt is made to ban guns from our parks or other public places.
Any idiot can see that easy gun accessibility is the common link in all our recent attacks on our police.
— Brian Hogan, Kent
Land of the free has limitations
Danny Westneat hits a bull’s-eye again with his column “Good enough for guns, not wheels.”
Time and again, week after week, Westneat manages to jostle our brains, and move to our hearts with his intelligent perspectives on current affairs. While he always has something interesting to say, his recent piece is especially powerful.
It should make even ardent gun-rights advocates sit up and think.
Living in the land of the free has limitations and rules, like driving on the right side of the road. That certainly isn’t freedom, but helps to keep us from killing other innocent people.
Our country should have basic gun control and licensing laws that help to do the same thing.
Thanks to Danny Westneat for pointing out the painful ironies once again. Hopefully, others are reading his words and are thinking again about this issue.
— Jack Swenson, Seattle
Looks like AT&T has gone and “modified its promotion and distribution channels” again. Either that or the carrier has a better handle on the “online fraudulent activity” that 