Arrest Me, I Will not Comply says Gavin Seim

Gun rights activists are promising a crowd of 5,000 or more armed activists to gather at the  Washington state capital’s lawn to protest stricter laws about gun ownership laws that will go into effect after voters approved ballot initiative i594.

The rally, scheduled for 11 a.m. Dec. 13 at the state Capitol, is being put together by Gavin Seim and Anthony Bosworth, according to the event’s Facebook page. Both men are failed candidates from the August primary races. Seim is a self-described “constitutional activist” and failed Congressional candidate who came in 8th out of 12 candidates running in the Republican primary. Bosworth is a failed Sheriff’s candidate who promised to arrest police for doing things he considered to be illegal.

“Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children?” reads the event page’s introduction. “I am Gavin Seim and I for one WILL NOT COMPLY!”

“We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We call on our Sheriffs, local representatives and legislators to stand with us and uphold their oaths,” reads the event’s Facebook page, adding later: “We will rally at the capital, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate I-594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!”

Background checks for gun transfers is just like standing by and letting somebody rape a child on the side of the road, you see. So now you understand why these huge enormous crowds are going to get together for LIBERTY! :

“I ask you if you are walking down a road and you see a child about to be raped, do you stand aside and let it happen? Do you say ‘I cannot decide if that is lawless, and wrong, and a violation of their rights? I’ll let the courts decide.'”

For the most part, it sounds like the gun fetishists are going to sit around and pass around their guns to each other. Vendors will be allowed to sell things, and the organizer is already selling his stickers on Facebook. Attendees are encouraged to bring chairs, and they may even rent some outdoor heaters if it gets too cold. There is a possibility of a potluck scenario if anybody wants to cook up some mac and cheese or make some stew.

The coat drive will be used for cold rally attendees, then coats will be passed onto the homeless.

A Washington State Patrol spokesman says people won’t be arrested for exchanging guns:

“We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” Bob Calkins, spokesman for the patrol, told the Seattle Times About the event.

“We are asking them for good gun-safety practices,” Calkins added, such as handling the weapons safely and not intimidating people.In those cases, there might be other laws that demonstrators would be breaking, and patrol officers will respond accordingly, Calkins added.But, “these are law-abiding folks, they have a political statement,” Calkins said. “We don’t expect a huge problem.”

Here’s some more information from their FAQ on the event, explaining why laws are not laws and how they will mass-disobey by having an impromptu gun sale / show convention, and actually sounds a bit like the sovereign citizen legal word salad that’s becoming a prevalent theme in the rightwing-nutjob-universe:

Q — How will we be violating i594?
A. It’s not hard since the law is so ridiculous. Hand a gun to a friend, buy a gun, sell a gun. You are welcome to do all of these things as you please. We are not here to obey this lawless law but to uphold real law and our rights. All gun laws that violate the Constitution are void. We are coming together to affirm that.

Q — Is this legal?
A. What’s legal is our rights. The supreme law of our Constitutions and our liberty. All other laws are lawless. But in the eyes of a lawless government, defying i594 is indeed illegal. We don’t care. It is our duty to defy such lawlessness and uphold our rights.

Q — Can we open carry/don’t open carry/loaded carry?
A. We’re not here to ask for our rights. We’re taking them. We are here to openly defy i594. We’re also here to be principled, respectful and peaceful. Don’t come looking for a fight, just come resolute. Bring your best, if that’s open carry, do it safe, if it’s concealed do so, if it’s your whole family, great. Come and stand principled for liberty and be a part of history.

Good luck with that.

  • Matt Terrell

    Lol the liberal bitch who wrote this needs to be put in a situation where she could use a gun..then i bet she changes her stupid ways..i bet you she dident write an article about all the black criminals in ferguson protesting looting shit burning stores down..beatin up people just cus there white..id feel alot safer with the gun nuts..you liberal cunt

    • Thank you for coming by to show us the Klansman lurking under the ammosexual exterior.

      • Matt Terrell

        Your welcome homosexual

        • Well, at least I’m not a turtle-rapist like you.

          • Matt Terrell

            Wow good one..im truly flattered you took the time out of your day to comment that amazing comeback..take the penis out of your ass and try again though

          • You’re the one with his dick in turtle.

        • ShineOn

          LOL! You think being called a homosexual is an insult. Too close to home, hmmmmm?

          Besides, it’s YOU”RE not Your! Stupid TROLL.

          • Matt Terrell

            Lol how cute a queer comin to take up for another polesmoker

          • ShineOn

            HAHAHAHA I am not gay!

      • Stop Statism

        People who use the term ammosexual show their intellectual bankruptcy and expose the fact that they get aroused by the exercise of government power

        • People who use the word “statism” for any governmental activity they dislike show their attenuated intellects and expose their obsession with autarky.

    • OooShiny

      It’s a mistake to assume that liberals do not own firearms.

      • Pedro

        No assumption there, it’s a fact. If they own them, they got them from their “crazy” old grandfather and they spend all their time trying to force others to give up their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

        • LOL what? You think that liberals inherit their guns and don’t go shopping for them? I have a few family members with guns that would really laugh at you. They even purchased lock boxes for their weapons!

          Saying liberals don’t own guns because we want universal background checks is like saying conservatives don’t have gay sex 🙂 because you want to outlaw gay marriage

          and everyone knows Republicans states consume the most gay sex videos out there

          heh

          • Pedro

            Change the subject much? Hoplophobe and homophobe all in one. You truly do live by your motto: “for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all”

          • I;m not afraid of guns or gay people dear. You mistake affection for fear. I have gun owners in my fam, and gay peeps too. And I love all of them.

          • Pedro

            Yet you constantly advocate the removal of civil, natural, and Constitutionally protected rights dear. You and I have many things in common, I too have gun owners in my family and “gay peeps”. I don’t refer to them as “gay peeps”, their sexuality is the least of my concerns.

          • Well, we’re friends and we have casual relationships where I can use the word “gay” or we can talk about their relationships. We’re very comfortable about sexuality and it’s not a big deal to mention if somebody’s gay or ask how their BF is doing.

            I don’t want to take away your rights to own a gun> I don’t think you’ll ever find ANYTHING on this website that would suggest I want people to not be able to own guns. You are just making things up.

            Most gay people don’t mind the fact that you acknowledge they exist and ask about their partners, husbands,life plans, weddings, etc. It’s not an insult to call people gay. Although many conservatives think it’s actually a bad word. In 2014, it’s just a word.

          • I will not comply

            There aleady are back ground checks.. And think you can go and just buy a gun of the internet is pretty ridiculous. You have to send the firearm to a licenced ffl dealer. This “law” was only passed by lies. Plan and simple.. The ignorance in Seattle is pathetic. If they only would of actually read the law and known the laws already in place. It wouldn’t have passed plain and simple.

        • ShineOn

          Oh puhleeze. Nome ONE “natural, civil, and constitutionally protected” right that others are trying to FORCE upon you. If you’re talking about a VOTE, then YOU LOSE. You are in the minority. And your reaction is to have a temper tantrum, like any spoiled three-year-old.

          • Pedro

            I can “nome” several. Hope you have a good day.

    • Pedro

      She is wrong and a hoplophobe but there are better ways of saying it.

    • Shade

      Wow another infowars bitch. When are you going to have that “revolution” that people online talk about. You are mentality ill people.

    • Osama Bin Drinkin’

      If there was ever an argument for stricter gun laws you just made you angry homophobic weirdo.

      • Matt Terrell

        Lol im a homophobic wierdo but the homos aint wierd for being gay..lol yea ok liberal logic

  • sherifffruitfly

    lol @ our hicks.

    they can just go back to confederate hick-land if they don’t like it here. we rational folks will be keeping washington civilized no matter what what the hicks say.

    • Pedro

      Elitist much?

  • OooShiny

    Was thinking the exact same thing, that their specific contextual use of words like:

    * Constitutional candidate
    * Constitutional activist
    * We will not comply
    * Constant claims of tyranny
    * Citizens threatening to arrest actual law enforcement
    * All laws not specifically listed in constitution are unconstitutional and unlawful

    …are exclusively sovereign-citizen buzzwords. If one were to ask them about traffic laws, they’d claim all traffic laws are unconstitutional and speed limits are a special form of tyranny because unless you kill someone or damage property, then no crime has occurred. If the name Ron Paul is mentioned in their presence, they’d explode in constitutional orgasms right then and there.

    These folks say they’re defending “real” laws when in fact they’re no-law-is-good-law anarchists, tax-protesting scammers, gun-humping hysterics and frothing John Birchers. Not exactly the rocket surgeons of our species.

    • ShineOn

      LOL! They sound just like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill, a dumb Texan conspiracy theorist! His biggest contribution to the show – his ONLY contribution to the show – is when he thinks he’s accomplished something and exclaims, “sha-shaw!” And that’s the depth of conspiracy theorists.

  • tyrannyofevilmen

    You see? Political protest is only a right if you agree with the leftists! If you don’t agree with them, you’re a goofball nut job.

    If you don’t understand that, you’re just another “stupid American”. Hell, you probably don’t understand why Obamacare is such a great idea either!

    • Nobody said they don’t have a right to protest. But if they break the law, they will also be arrested. Just like the leftists would be arrested for illegal behavior.

      • tyrannyofevilmen

        if a law is unconstitutional, immoral, or violates a fundamental human right, then following it is also immoral regardless of your political affiliation.

        Did Harriet Tubman break the law when she moved slaves from the south into free states using her underground railroad? Yep.

        Was she morally correct to do so? You betcha.

        • Yes, refusing to get a background check is exactly as noble, and historically important and Christian as freeing slaves. You got me. I’m an awful racist for not getting that!

          • Pedro

            Thank you for admitting you are a racist. Yes, many anti gun laws were passed to prevent minorities from owning them.

          • tyrannyofevilmen

            Probably not. You just don’t understand what an analogy is or how to debate an argument with a counter-argument. It’s not really surprising. Most uber-leftists have that problem.

          • I don’t consider it my job to debate or convince people. My job is writing articles. I don’t have to feel like I “won” an argument to be happy about my work

            What makes me happiest is that people who disagree are reading. Thank you.

          • ShineOn

            LOL! Now we are “uber-leftists” just for supporting gun legislation!

          • Matt Terrell

            Goddamn dude get a life..you gonna comment on everyones comments cus there not liberal pansies like you

          • ShineOn

            MYOB. My comment was to Hypatia, not you.

  • I don’t get the rabid assault on guns. Statistically, firearms deaths are a non issue, specifically all weapons but handguns, yet every bit of gun law focus is on rifles. More people were beat to death by hand/foot than were killed with rifles. Actually shotguns and rifles combined were less deaths than fists and feet. I mean knives, fists, and blunt objects like hammers and clubs trump all firearms other than handguns in murders. Why isn’t there some outrage over this. We might as well take hands, hammers, and knives while we are at.

    Over 1300 of the 4000+ pedestrian-car fatalities are from hit and runs. Should we take cars away because people can murder with them? Rocks are pretty dangerous too… Hey if it saves even one life right? And this author scoffs at liberty, sick/sad joke what liberal means these days. Long passed are the days of liberal equating to liberty.

    The discussion on firearms is entirely based on an appeal to emotion, i.e. logical fallacy.

    • Lt me know when a person takes a car into an elementary school and murders 15 or 16 kids, okay? Or when we take cars into war and merely run people over with them because they’re such a great tool for mass-killings.

      Weapons are built to be highly accurate tools for killing. Many of the guns on the market in the US are also tools used in war across the globe.

      • Your arguments have zero applicable sense. You have done EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, logical fallacy-appeal to emotion. Citing a case of murdered children is an emotional plea having nothing to do with statistical evidence. It is scary that some human could kill our children, but what you are refusing to accept is that guns aren’t the problem. It is the nut who thinks killing a classroom of children is a good idea…. And what on earth does driving cars into war have anything to do with the discussion… because cars aren’t weapons of war they don’t kill people? It makes no sense. I just cited that cars kill 3-4 times as many people every year in hit and runs alone compared rifles or shotguns. You are defending a personal belief with indifference to facts and logic.

        And I don’t see why if they had no guns they wouldn’t…. Is you assumption if he had no guns there is no way he could have killed those children… because that is quite frankly, ridiculous. The intent is to kill a classroom of children it can be done any number of ways. For example, columbine kids strapped pipe-bombs to propane tanks and put them in the cafeteria during a busy time period on timers. Luckily they didn’t go off or hundreds would have died. Should we ban propane tanks, or common materials like gas and styrofoam that can be combined to make napalm?

        Get a grip. People are crazy, if they want to kill kids and then themselves, they’ll kids and then themselves. It really isn’t something excessively challenging. It is scary that this is true, but regardless of your inability to accept not all humans are wonderful gems and actually want to murder a school full of kids, it is still true.

        • You are the one who is ALL CAPS yelling.

          very emotional. Active shooter casualties are going up. When it comes to high-casualty incidents like this, is it wrong to say, not only 1 is too many, but hundreds are unacceptable?

          http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/2014/10/01/school-shootings-signal-america-still-needs-to-strengthen-gun-laws/

          Why are people so terrified of filing out a piece of paper and registering their guns? What’s the REAL FEAR? Because I am not scared of filling out a paper to get my drivers license or filing my taxes. Are you? What’s the fear of background checks? Not ALL Republican gun owners have a violent background, do you?

          • I am not yelling, I am emphasizing. I stated you are complicit in logical fallacies through an appeal to emotion. Meaning, your statements are illogical, and irrelevant to the discussion. They are chosen and used as a means to illicit an emotional response so that facts, logic, and applicable information can be discarded, and your belief can be given significance and value it should not have but for the emotional pleas.

            Ok so there is an increase in this plot, yet the data from FBI shows a dramatic decrease in overall fire arms homicides 1975-2011. I spent the time to pull this together and make the plot… attached…

            Data links included to I think all sources. 2 notes, there was conflicting data for 2000, one fbi report said 8493 and the other said 8661. I used only one and the higher one so as to not inflate the downward trend. Another note is the source for 1975-1994 showed a plot and I approximated the numbers. The chart is available on the pdf link below. The downward trend is glaringly obvious. maybe some shooting stats are up, but overall gun violence has dramatically decreased….

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec5.pdf
            http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2004

            Conveniently that data only goes back to 2000. So how does this decade compare to the previous one, or the one before that? Is this increase significant or flatline relevant to US gun history? I don’t know because this is a zoomed in view of information.

            Your lack of comprehension of liberty is mindboggling. The point has nothing to do with fear of hiding something, it is has everything to do with me being allowed to do something guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, right next to free speech and right to assembly. Do you think you should have to register your name somewhere before you can speak freely? What are you afraid of? Do you have something to hide? If I am doing nothing wrong why do I need to register my personal information to the government? What do they have to do with me being a perfectly legal and law abiding citizen? You are placing your trust in the government rather than in your own hands and family.

            You don’t have to consent to a police search for no reason. Why should you, you have done nothing wrong. If you have nothing to hide who cares what the government or police does. Let them come into your home and check it out. Why not just let them install cameras and microphones. You have nothing to hide right? Maybe you should install a government gps in your car so they know where you go, submit your cc statements and track cash so they know when and what you spend money on. Why not, nothing to hide right?

            Aaaand finally, it is in the constitution, in the bill of rights….i am doing nothing wrong by buying a firearm, it is a right guaranteed to me. Buying one constitutes imparting my labor to receive a piece of property, my property. No one shall have any rights to my property (identification and firearm) but me. There is no probable cause without first something happening. Innocent until proven guilty.

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          • not sure why the image wasn’t loading… here is the plot showing a steep decline in firearms murders since 1975

          • This chart is meaningless without the information on what group you are talking about and what statistics you are using. This is basically just a chart with lines that says nothing. It doesn’t even say if this is in the US

          • this is cumulative firearms murders in the US with FBI crime data. how is this meaningless? It is FBI data, i provided the links to all the yearly reports showing where the data is from.

            The total number of deaths from firearms is going down, even if there is a localized increase in active shooters. Are you saying you are not concerned about deaths by firearms themselves, just active shooters/mass shootings?

          • It’s meaningless because you don’t cite the date this data was published, where I can find a copy of it, where the numbers came from — you can’t prove it’s actual research. It’s just numbers on a page if you don’t know what exact publication it came from.

            It’s impossible to fact-check something if you can’t say where the information was published. Saying “FBI” is not enough because the FBI releases reports every day of the year.

          • sorry the image attached so many times it didn’t look like it was working…

            anyway, I assume you didn’t actually read my post (and why i’m not going to waste anymore time on you, you have a talking point and obviously aren’t interested in reading or listening to factual information….) because it is in my original post. I linked directly to the data on the fbi’s website, it is from their yearly reports.

            here are the links again….

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec5.pdf
            http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2004

            sorry i did forget to include this on….
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

          • Okay, so how is 8,588 out of 12,664 murders not make guns the top used weapon in violent crime?

            that’s 67% of murders committed with a gun

            If one background check saved one person from buying and using an AK-47, would that be worth it to you?

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

          • No, that is the point you are missing. The argument is it worth one life is emotional only, it makes me seem cold and insensitive when really I am concerned with facts and statistics. 2918 people were killed by knives, blunt object, and fists. Are you planning to legislate knives blunt objects and fists? If it saves one life to make all Americans wear padded gloves, register their kitchen knives, and need a permit to play baseball then we should be doing a lot. By your logic and argument, if it saves even one life you should be required to pass a background test before you can buy a hammer or a screwdriver at home depot. It would save lives! Bad things happen to good people, it is scary that this is true, it is because some people are not good people. No matter how many laws you pass you can’t legislate human morality.

            FYI Not only has that been a downward trend since 1975 (gun ownership is substantially higher-if this is correlated it proves a point, if they are not correlated than it proves increasing gun ownership has no effect on decreasing firearms murders) it is also a statistically insignificant number of deaths each year. In 2011 rifles killed 323 people, that is half as much as fists and feet.

            For example, London has no guns allowed, they average 11000+ knife murders a year.

            http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2013/06/25/london-knife-crime-offences-by-borough-2007-to-2013/

            It doesn’t matter what criminals have available to them, if they want to be murderous criminals, they will be murderous criminals and there is nothing you can do about that. Again, I know this is scary, but you can’t legislate away everyone’s rights to prevent people from hurting each other.

          • No, I get it, I get it.

            Your rights trump the rights of already-born fetuses. One life means nothing in the face of the rights of people not to have to get background checks. Background checks are immoral, evl, and infringe on the rights of all people with criminal backgrounds from getting their guns. Shame on me for wanting criminals to be denied legal gun ownership. Shame on me for saying that people who batter women shouldn’t be able to get guns.

            A female who has a cell implanted in her uterus has no rights.

            But criminals who want to buy guns should be able to do it freely, without scrutiny, because otherwise it’s tyranny.

            You will never convince me that because you’re selfish, you are correct. All that I hear is “waaah” when I ask why a background check hurts you.

            My only assumption is that you are all criminals, and don’t deserve to have guns anyway. Avoiding a background check just proves that you have something to hide.

          • what, fetuses? What are you talking about… we are talking about guns… that is a cute subversion to discuss something entirely unrelated. I might add, fairly bold to presume anything about my positions on fetuses…I am not sure how i follow someone who’s had a cell implanted into them has no rights? of course they do, their bodies are their property. I do think fetuses have some right to life at some point as well, but that is certainly a complicated issue being brought up here for literally no reason other than to make ad hominem attacks ( another logical fallacy- keep up the great work avoiding factual discussions) against your presumed and apparently prejudice expectation of who and what I stand for. Just because I don’t agree with someones personal choices doesn’t mean I think I should control their ability to do so unlike you.

            I don’t think they are immoral or evil, I think they are illegal and contrary to all the law abiding citizens rights. If I am doing nothing wrong why am I forced to be held accountable for uuuhhh nothing? If you truly feel this way about background checks on the grounds that they may save even one life, then seriously, anything that could be used to kill you ought to require a background check. I don’t think you should be allowed to walk around the streets without a permit because you may have a pen in your pant pocket that could be used to murder someone just as easily as shooting someone. This isn’t a ridiculous obscure proposition given more people are beat to death in a year than they are killed by shotguns. This way, if you ever do decide to murder someone we can know the store you bought your BIC murder weapon from. Your premise is these can be used to kill so they need to be regulated.

            Again, I cite London as an example, they are only a single city but stabbing murders are 10 times our entire countries. Your position is inherently emotional and non factual. It is simply and factually not statistically relevant.

          • ShineOn

            What a useless chart. Is it from US stats or worldwide? What group is it measuring? It has no link, and no basis in reality.

          • It is really amazing how little you guys bother reading. No wonder I need to have this discussion with you guys. I cited my sources in my text where I originally posted the chart. It is from fbi.gov. the links are right there. reading the first paragraph or two would show you that… Pictures are worth a 1000 words, but, sheesh, read the paragraph citing its sources.

          • Pedro

            Kinda like you

          • I asked you a simple question — why do you fear gun background checks or registering a weapon to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and be accountable for your property? Why do you fear accountability?

            Do you refuse to register your car with the government or hand over a title when selling a car?

          • I don’t fear my innocence or accountability but what am I being held accountable for, exercising my constitutional rights? If I murder someone then I should be held accountable and tried by an unbiased jury of my peers. Accountability isn’t restricting or controlling constitutional rights just in case I break the law at some point in the future…

            I believe that is a direct contradiction to liberty, property rights, and the individual sovereignty guaranteed to us by the constitution. So yes, I fear unconstitutional background checks and property registration. The fact that you casually disregard rights in the constitution is what I am afraid of even more.

            Do you realize how insane that sounds, keeping guns out of criminal hands? They are criminals, they’ll obviously obtain weapons somehow… Given the statistics and facts I mentioned and continue to advocate for, your solution is imposing regulations on a vast majority of law abiding citizens because of your emotional response to a statistical non-issue. If people dying is really a concern there are many things that kill more people. Do you advocate for knife control and registration? Should I register with the government before buying a chefs knife, just in case I kill someone with it and need to be held accountable? Does that make and sense at all?

            I do register my car with a state government, having a car is not a constitutionally appointed right. Do you register with your state government before you can exercise free speech, or register your religion to a local government office before you can practice? Do you need to pass a test or receive permission before you and meet some friends in a club meeting? I don’t understand how you blatantly disregard that gun rights are in the bill of rights.

          • James

            Perfectly stated. Liberals have a habit of labeling whatever they choose to believe as common sense. Liberals … what this person just said is an actual example of common sense.

          • James

            Name one government in history that confiscated cars after they were registered. Now name the countries that did so with firearms and you’ll have your answer.

          • ShineOn

            He’s VERY afraid that registering his gun will necessitate the recording of his penis size.

          • dg54321

            Congrats on declaring a forfeit.

        • ShawnTil

          Aren’t cars and trucks being used in suicide bombers? How about the Oklahoma city bombing? The WTC bombing? Is it also not a FACT that most of the deaths of our military are done with IED’s and suicide bombers and not by guns? To be honest, I would rather take a bullet to the head for an instant death rather than being beatin, drowned, stabed or stomped to death. Having a gun just might protect me or any of you from such awful deaths. Gun death don’t come close to the amount of deaths caused by alcohol related deaths.

    • ShineOn

      You dumbass, a car is not designed to kill – guns are, can you think of ONE use for a gun in which the ultimate purpose is not to kill or disable an opponent or game??? You can’t really be that stupid – you are being deliberately deceptive.

      • That isn’t the argument made. The argument made is that they do kill regardless of intention, and as a result banning or at least controlling them would saves lives. I don’t argue guns aren’t almost entirely for killing (fair amount are used for sport shooting) but i wholly accept the killing nature of guns, but I don’t get why that makes the underlying intention any different. Cars kill a lot of people. Stricter laws on who can drive and under what conditions would save substantially more lives than erasing guns off the face of the planet. But you aren’t advocating saving as many lives as possible, and driving isn’t even a right strictly acknowledged in the constitution….

        Going after one of the smallest reasons people die in the nation and putting the rights of millions of law abiding citizens in trash to do so seems to me to be more of negative than a positive.

  • JohnBull

    If only these people spent a fraction of their time caring about their kids than they did about guns.

    • Pedro

      Nothing to see here. Just leftist trolls

  • ShineOn

    LOL! 5000 rifle-toting brain-dead Reich-wingers hardly constitutes a MAJORITY. Go home, assholes, and let the people speak!

    • Thanks for stopping by! Your comments made me laugh!

      I’ve been like this all day

      • dg54321

        Ah yes, Janeway. The fascist dictator that ruined Star Trek for everybody. I can see why she would be your hero.

    • Pedro

      More children die from drowning btw. Look it up. If you dont help me fill in swimming pools, you are part of the problem.

  • Geotracker

    Patriots are gun nuts????? If not, then what is your definition of a gun nut verses your definition of a patriot? Remeber, when you answer, patriots rebelled against the government with no other than GUNS! Not only that, but they had equal fire power as the government. Now a days, the KING won’t let us have equal fire power, BUT WE DO HAVE, NUMBERS, and Video phones and live streaming videos so the public can watch the government in real time bloodying up men, women and children. OHHHHH the video is the most powerful weapon!!! It scares the HELL out of the tyrants. I mean, go back and look at what happened In Nevada at the Bundy ranch, verses what happened in Waco or Ruby Ridge….. That would not have happened had there beenlive streaming videos… NO, because the people would actually get to see the TRUTH, NOT the watered down lies. You trust your government too much……..

  • Stop Statism

    I`m sure that the stop the gun violence gun control supporters will be calling for the use of…you guessed it armed people with guns to arrest these protestors. That is brazen hypocrisy if you as a gun control supporter call for armed violence. Non violence civil disobedience is as American as apple pie. It has been used before for many causes.

  • James

    Name-calling often discredits the opinion of the offender. The author is no different than the others who are responding with slurs. Homos, hicks, gun-nuts, rightwing-nutjobs, etc. Clearly the author has a hatred for those of us who value the second amendment and he or she shows it quite clearly. It’s yet another heaping helping of that liberal tolerance we all know and love.

  • micah

    While Matt Terrel (commentor below) is actually sounding like a nutcase, most of us gun rights activists are calm cool and collected individuals. Its the liberal attackers who assign ridiculous terms such as gun nuts and gun fetishists trying to make responsible people seem crazy. I will be attending this protest because the new initiative I594 crosses the line of the people’s rights in Washington state. A bunch of billionares funded a campaign that flat out lied to the people, claiming it was just about a back ground check loophole. What 594 really is a power/money grab produced by the state to start a gun registry. I594 has a bunch of fine print statutes written in that prevent us from even sharing guns when we go shooting together and would allow seizure by the state of fire fire arms from the original owners family after their passing. We are simply stating that we will not let our 2nd amendment rights be infringed. We are standing up against lawless lawmakers just like the founders of this great nation did. We well be peaceful but firm in our stance. Enough is enough and we are tired of statist politicians chipping away at our rights little by little. Why are we “nuts” just for standing up for our rights and what we believe in? Im not gay but I voted FOR gay marriage in WA, because I believe everyone should have the right to live as they see fit. That is all we are asking for as well.

  • Jerry Cummings

    My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps; and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a tail whoopin.’

    I don’t carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

    I don’t carry a gun to scare people; I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid; I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

    I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry; I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

    I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy; I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

    I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

    I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

    I don’t carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

    Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves, because police do not protect you from crime, they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

    Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a tail whooping’! Author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

    A LITTLE BIT OF GUN HISTORY…

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control:

    From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    Germany established gun control in 1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    —- ————- ————-

    Uganda established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    —————————–

    56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Centurybecause of gun control!

    ——————————

    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    With guns, we are ‘citizens’; without them, we are ‘subjects’.

    During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! Gun owners in the USA are the largest armed forces in the world!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

    The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD!

    SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.

    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

    IT’S A NO BRAINER!

    DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

  • Cole Childers

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
    maturity.”  
    –Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

  • Steven Cox

    I hesitate to add my two cents into this conversation that has degraded into personal attacks, but here goes:
    I do not support I594 for the simple reason it is infringement upon the 2nd Amendment and erodes our rights unding the Constitution. I agree with background checks of all gun transfers which I594 does, however, it establishes a monopoly for Gun dealers and private citizens must pay the dealers to do a transfer and add upwards of $75 per gun to the cost. Family inheritance of weapons will be the next gun grab as it is in NY. I594 now makes it possible to take guns from anyone without due process and never return them to their owners. Veterans with PTSD are all criminals for “mental illness” because they have guns and are, erroneously, stereotyped as at risk of “hurting themselves or others.” This is a dangerous and slippery slope WA has entered into. I594 is a bad law and the truth was never told about what it will do to our rights. Regardless of where you stand on owning and carrying a firearm, you should be involved in this event from a Constitutional standpoint. Ultimately, fear, paranoia, bigotry, hate or personal preference does not trump the Constitution because it is meant to keep one special interest from imposing it’s will upon another. Freedom and Liberty to choose for ourselves is a fundamental right which is infringed to the point of being denied under I594.

  • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

    Very disappointing article. Andrew Breitbart would be appalled at your use of his name.

  • doc

    This woman self describes as a “writer, thinker, researcher, philosopher”. Perhaps, but this post indicates an extreme bias that apparently has precluded her from researching. Perhaps she could start with the dictionary definitions of “shall not be” and “infringed”. The post suggests she may have read Siem’s material, however, if she did, she deliberately ignored the core claim of Siem’s writings. The name calling is offensive to the ethic of philosophy. That includes you, Mr. Terrill.
    On the other hand, I do see clues suggesting Ms. Livingston is a product of Saul Alinsky’s school of subversion of the law.

  • Gearmoe

    594 was promoted to make our world safer, to keep those nasty guns out of criminal hands.

    The problem is the law was written to and addresses only law-abiding people.

    594 is functionally unenforceable. It is a method to increase revenue. It creates a registry which can be used to confiscate firearms. (this has already been done, there is proof). 594 will likely be gutted or eventually repealed.

  • joshua hurst

    Where are your stories about the armed “nuts” carrying illegally and murderously in Chicago?