I think it would have been funny if that guy carrying a gun into the West Seattle community center had been promptly shot.
Well, no… not funny, exactly. What’s the word I’m thinking of…? Ironic. That’s it.
Yes, I think it would have been ironic.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
If he were a Seattle resident, I would have been supportive, but having someone come up from Kent to tell us that our gun laws should conform to his sensibilities is no less obnoxious than someone from Seattle going to Kent and demanding that they disallow guns in their public places.
@1….or perhaps like people from Seattle telling us in Maple Valley, Hobart, etc…what we can do with our land…..
…you mean THAT kind of obnoxious?
Lee; your logic fails since i’ll bet you love having national laws on abortion healthcare etc. But when it comes to a constituitionally protected right, you don’t want it to apply for any citizen anywhere. wierd, lack of logical thinking there
@2
Yes, I do. Unless of course what you do with your land has the potential to affect people in Seattle, in which case the analogy doesn’t hold up.
@3
What? Having an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. Being able to carry a gun everywhere you want to go is not. And healthcare? What the hell does that have to do with it?
Please don’t show up to a gun fight with a plastic fork.
Lee; which amendment or article in the Constitution protects abortion (i’m actually not rabid on that issue, i’m more saying…gee you guys invoke national laws on any idea, be it FDA on my spaghetti sauce, or cell towers, or hate crimes or whatever. But when it comes to a EXPLICIT constitutional rights you go all “local only” on us..
@2 – Um, are you, perhaps, confusing the City of Seattle with King County?
@6
Roe v. Wade affirms that women have a constitutional right to privacy and that bans on abortion violate that right. Please see the link in the Open Thread I just posted for a news article about yourself.
had this been reversed, and some dipshit went down to kent and did this, wingnuts would be flying off the handle.
it was a stunt, i don’t see how a man from kent has any more legal standing than the previous lawsuit.
also, i’m not sure what calling the news had to do with making a point.
just some sheisty lawyer trying to make a name for himself.
and yes, had some hoodlum actually shot the moron, that would have been hilariously ironic.
@6
And to explain it more clearly, you have a Constitutional right to own a gun (and that’s a right I strongly agree with), but you do not have a Constitutional right to have that gun with you everywhere you go.
I wonder what the wingnuts would be saying if his name had been, say, Hassan bin Whalid?
Good for him. He sees something that he doesn’t believe is right and standing up for it. He announced well before-hand he was doing it, wasn’t an ass about it, staff weren’t an ass about about it, and the legitimate question will be answered in a court of law.
The thing that gun-phobic people just seem to miss is that they really shouldn’t be worrying about the licensed people who do carry any more than cops. The people that get CCW permits are just as stable and responsible citizens.
And this whole Kent resident in Seattle point is crap. It’s like saying a Spokane citizen shouldn’t complain if their car tabs aren’t valid in Tacoma or a North Bend fishing license isn’t valid in Walla Walla. We’re all Washingtonians under the same gun laws and shouldn’t have different local ones.
What exactly did he accomplish? He was asked to leave and he did. Big man with a gun turned tail and ran when confronted by a women with a clipboard.
I thought he wanted to get arrested so he could sue the city in court and have the law tested. Not a very bright lawyer.
Well, he got his picture in the paper with his gun.
Did I read that correctly? That he is a federal employee or a contractor getting paid with federal money? Doesn’t that mean no matter what he does conservatives will think he’s wrong? That’s ironic.
Why doesn’t he assert his constitutional right to bring a gun onto a commercial flight? I’d enjoy seeing that.
Matty @12,
Whatever he thought he was standing up for, it still would have been ironic if he were shot. You gotta admit that.
“really shouldn’t be worrying about the licensed people who do carry any more than cops.”
Some years ago I personally knew a violent psychotic with a concealed carry license. Hey, more food for corvids! We ain’t phobic–we love weapons.
Goldy @16,
I really don’t see the irony….or at least not any more ironic than if a cop got shot….which is to say I guess I’m missing the humor on this one.
Sorry. Maybe I just don’t get it…I dunno.
Maybe I’m like our mutual friend Jimmie, have a different sensibility about guns, and think we’re generally better as a nation with citizens that can carry.
And I don’t count myself as one of those obsessive 2nd Amendment types. I’d probably be fine without carrying AS LONG AS the bad guys lose their guns first.
Funny thing is…I know of another city in Washington that has had essentially the same law on the books for about a decade now. Maybe I should go carry in one of it’s parks and make this a statewide issue.
Personally, I think the guy did a civic solid by doing things peacefully. I’m fine with letting a judge or those 9 judges down in Oly deciding. ;)
Raven @17,
I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule. Probably a cop or two out there that shouldn’t be carrying either. ;)
More importantly, if you knew he was psychotic did you do your civic duty and turn him in?
I’m kind of curious what this guy might claim as “damages.” Damages are an integral part of any civil lawsuit. How has he been harmed? Anybody got any idea how he’s been harmed?
Guys…
I am writing this comment from my hotel room in Vienna, Austria, where I have just finished spending four days participating in the World Justice Project’s annual conference on strengthening the rule of law worldwide.
And speaking as a guy who voted for McGinn, Constantine, Holmes, R-71, and against 1033, but still somehow keeps a straight face when claiming to be an independent with libertarian leanings…
I support this guy in Kent 100%. What he did is not about guns. It’s about the law. It’s about the fact that not only is Nickels trying to criminalize constitutionally protected conduct, but he is attempting to do so without the participation of the legislature.
Regardless of where you stand on gun control, you should support Mr. Warden. What he is doing is as noble as when we support the free speech rights of those with whom we disagree.
21
“Noble.” Really? That would not be how I would describe what he’s done.
the legitimate question will be answered in a court of law
What court of law? Which one of his rights were violated? No one took his gun, he was not arrested. He was asked to leave and walked out.
@22,
That is because you are refusing to see how this is more than a gun rights issue. Here, let me Google it for you: separation of powers
@23,
Note that he did not assert his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms in a public place, but if he had, he would have been arrested for trespassing. Such an arrest would violate his fourth amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as his rights under the second amendment and others. The fact that he waived his rights rather than have them infringed is immaterial; either way we look at it, he was denied the benefit of his rights.
@23
The question will be answered when he either makes a claim against Seattle, they presumably will deny it, and he’ll then file a suit in superior court for them denying him access to a public facility he has a right to go to.
Same thing is if you were denied access to a library because there was some arbitrary law blocking people named “Don” from going into them.
Just because he complied with an unlawful order doesn’t mean it’s right and he’ll have his day in court.
Goldy @16,
Shot by whom? By a law enforcement officer?
Even if we accept the legality of Nickels’ gun ban for the sake of argument, that does not mean a cop can shoot a person for merely carrying a holstered pistol into a place where they shouldn’t.
What do you figure would be the irony in that case? Seeing a police officer arraigned on murder charges?
Okay, here’s a thought experiment that I hope makes the real issue clear to everyone:
Imagine if Bud Norris, whom you may recall recently awarded the key to the city of Mt. Vernon to Glenn Beck, decided to adopt Mayor Nickels’ logic for his own agenda up north.
Suppose Mayor Norris reasons, as Nickels did, “Parks, play fields and community centers are city property, and property owners can set the rules on their own property, so let’s make a rule that says ‘Gay People May Not Display Affection at Parks, Play Fields, or Community Centers.’ If any gay people try kissing or holding hands at the park, we’ll ask them to leave, and arrest them if they don’t.”
Now let’s imagine that a gay couple from Seattle attends a family picnic in Mt. Vernon and is asked to either stop kissing / holding hands, or leave the park.
“But gay people have a constitutional right to free expression and assembly,” we might protest. But Mayor Norris might reply, “If the Mayor can carve out exceptions to one constitutional right in Seattle, I can carve out exceptions to another constitutional right up here in Mt. Vernon.” And by the logic of the Nickels Gun Ban, he’d be right.
“But we just passed a freaking state law — twice! — giving gay couples full and equal rights*,” we might protest further. But Mayor Norris might reply, “Well, if the Mayor of Seattle can enact local rules that are contrary to state law, then so can the Mayor of Mt. Vernon.” And by the logic of the Nickels Gun Ban, he’d be right.
We might then protest, “But a Mayoral executive can’t just make a new rule that effectively criminalizes previously lawful behavior! That’s the job of the legislature or the city council!” And Bud Norris might reply, “Well, that’s exactly what happened in Seattle with the Nickels Gun Ban, and that’s what we’re doing here in Mt. Vernon.”
Now do you guys see what’s really at stake here?
Try to look past the fact that the current instance threatens a right that you happen to oppose, and imagine if the right at issue was one of the ones you cherish. Goldy, Don, K, and co., can you maybe not rush to throw out the rule of law baby with the arms-bearing bathwater?
Bob Warden (the guy from Kent) has taken pains to emphasize that he is not with the NRA, is not a gun nut, and is not doing this for the sake of gun rights. He’s donating his time and money for the purpose of bringing this issue to the court’s attention as promptly as possible, and he’s been totally civil and polite about it.
Bob Warden deserves all of our support. The next time a Mayor attempts unilateral and autocratic lawmaking, it might be in order to curtail a right you actually care about.
I don’t know where the superfluity of gun nuts and wingnuts came from in this country. I grew up with firearms. Everybody owned some and LEARNED HOW TO HANDLE THEM and nobody was running around screaming that they could carry concealed weapons around anywhere they want, BY GOD, and then try to make sure that every criminal and nutcase in the country could own a gun by gutting the gun laws.
It didn’t used to be filled with wacko religious nuts, just normal mainstream protestants and RCs that didn’t, for the most part, meddle in American politics, and the Southern Baptists were reasonable people, even. Now every fucking bible-thumper with not the slightest hint of the history of the scriptures he’s mangling thinks this country was founded on Christianity, BY GOD, and don’t bring history into it.
I am going to be SO FUCKING HAPPY to spend Christmas and the rest of my life in a country where people are reasonable and sane and normal. This place has gone too far down the tubes for me.
You can have Normy and Cynical and Marky and feckless idiot ESO and the rest of your favorite nutcases. I’ll spend my last years in peace and not have to worry about another GWB and Iraqi-type adventures.
And all of the above-named assholes feel free to shriek all you want about how happy you are to be rid
of me. Bring it ON! I’ll enjoy the screams!
I have retirement capital and I intend to spend it.
Keep up the good work , Rog.
Try to look past the fact that the current instance threatens a right that you happen to oppose
Wrong, I’m not against the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with people owning and carrying guns responsibly. In fact, I’d have no problem with the city or county owning a shooting range to allow gun owners a place to practice.
I’m just not a knee jerk whiny baby about it when government tries to put reasonable rules in place to protect everyone. Why doesn’t this guy pull his little stunt at the airport, or how about Qwest field during a Seahawks game? And no, Qwest field is NOT private property, we the citizens own it.
Exactly. Amen. By God.
Here’s some irony for ya’.
So the guy is a hero.
Chances are good, don’t you think, that his intent was to challenge a specific law that offends a lot of paranoid people?
Does intent have anything to do with it?
Or should we praise anyone at any time who protests a law that they believe is wrong?
Eric @26,
Shot by another gun toting citizen, who ironically feared for his own safety upon seeing this guy’s gun, and so shot first.
See, that would be ironic. Because this is about more than just one’s rights under the 2nd Amendment, and how broadly a particular group of Supreme Court justices chooses to interpret them, it’s also about public policy.
Again and again, here in my comment threads and throughout the public debate, gun rights advocates argue that guns make us safer… indeed, that if more people carried guns, America would be a safer place. And I believe that is complete and total bullshit.
I mean, really, fuck this guy from Kent insisting that the West Seattle Community Center, a place he would never otherwise visit, allow people to be armed. Fuck him attempting to impose his policies on our community.
Yes, it would have been ironic if he had been shot, because statistics show that owning and carrying a gun makes one more likely to injure or kill, or be injured or killed oneself by a firearm.
What I don’t get is how, with reams and reams of data showing that guns don’t make you safer and that they destabilize communities, these folks are allowed to get away with making the “guns make you safer” argument.
I wonder if having to worry about getting shot, held up or intimidated by some someone with a gun violates a persons fundamental right of freedom of movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ted_States
It is a “religious” issue, which is to say: a firmly(!) held belief that is not subject to rational discussion.
Gun nuts and religious folks are not the only people to have this syndrome. We all know “free market” advocates that “just KNOW” they are right! It’s OBVIOUS.
Now, religious nutcases and gun nuts push the respective parts of the constitution way beyond what most others might agree with, but it’s pretty much quietly tolerated until a significant problem arises with letting these people have their way.
I also get a kick out of the religious nuts that hold that freedom of religion means that gays, liberals, whatever should be prohibited to protect THEIR beliefs. It’s in the constitution, you know.
After all, their religion is the only true one.
Wow.
In writing @21 & @27, I went to great effort in the faint hope that readers might recognize that the essence of Mr. Warden’s legal challenge is not actually about gun rights. Yet everybody, including Goldy, seems to have missed the point completely, as nobody even addresses it in any response to my posts.
You all get a zero for reading comprehension. Seriously.
Well, see, that’s what you get for being wrong about everything.
Well yeah fore them, but why is it that the media and the politico’s never push back against the “guns make us safe” idea?
I’m not anti-gun. Until fairly recently I was a gun owner and I’d like to be one again. But, with the way the crazies have latched onto guns it’s just not something I can do right now.
@21, 27
The mayor’s gun ban is stupid and illegal, will probably never be enforced and be dropped from the books in a year or two.
The guy from Kent was being a grandstanding blowhard and his actions did not and will not change anything.
@4…hypocrite much?
you want to tell the rural areas how they should use their land, then nut up and buy some property and get some skin in the game.
Seattle is already a shithole – and you want to tell us how to live? lol.
@7…no, I am refering to the PEOPLE of seattle, who are the ones dictating how the rest of king county runs.
like some queer living in belltown has any idea of property issues in enumclaw…give me a break.
Because they are afraid of the NRA. And they should be, because those lying assholes wrap themselves in the flag and constitution while working to get guns into the hands of all the nutcases they can, continually mewling about being only for “lawful” gun owners. and they’ll spare no expense to hassle anybody who stands in their way, and employ any means to smear their opponents.
They make sure anybody qualifies as “lawful” by gutting all the laws pertaining to firearms.
Somedav I’ll tell you how I REALLY feel about them….
Nice!
Things change over time. Just because your daddy done it that way, doesn’t mean you get to do it that way. There are plenty of folks in Enumclaw and other outlining areas that don’t like a handful of hicks running roughshod over everyone else.
@43
I’m far more irritated by people who cave to the nonsense spewed by the NRA/Glenn Beck/John Birch crowd than I am by the NRA/Glenn Beck/John Birch crowd.
I mean, if Jon Stewart can make a ton of money off of showing what idiots they are, why can’t a politician or a reporter tell them no?
X’ad@28: “I don’t know where the superfluity of gun nuts and wingnuts came from in this country.”
It is amazing how much recent US politics can be explained as a result of masculinity doubts.
Croak!