The flimsy sham of ‘public safety’ in gun prohibition argument(WA)

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 9 March, 2012 | Dave Workman

[marktwain]

In the wake of Thursday’s gun rights victory in Washington State, as the final legal nail was driven into Seattle’s gun ban coffin by the State Supreme Court’s rejection of its appeal in Winnie Chan v. City of Seattle, Mayor Mike McGinn and City Attorney Pete Holmes played the “children and families” card.

Earlier this week, after a federal judge in Maryland declared that state’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for issuing a concealed carry permit in that state to be unconstitutional, the state Attorney General’s office played the “public safety” card in its effort to stay the judge’s ruling pending an appeal.

Gun rights activists are having none of it. Gun prohibitionists pull these arguments faster than they imagine legally armed citizens pulling guns at fender benders or bar fights. The arguments simply do not wash.

Both McGinn and Holmes issued statements after Thursday's ruling saying the city would ask the 2013 Legislature to give cities the authority to restrict gun use in public places.

"A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said.

This column begs to differ. A park is a very good place for a firearm. Recall the incident at a Kirkland park in May of 2011 in which an armed citizen had to shoot an aggressive pit bull in defense of himself and his own dog, as this column reported.

Question for Mssrs. McGinn and Holmes: If you were a parent visiting a park and some crackhead (who probably voted for you two, unless he is an illegal alien enjoying your city’s sanctuary, and then he probably voted twice) turns loose his vicious dog and it attacks your child, would you rather:

[marktwain]

Committed progressives are immune to logic and facts. They will simply dismiss them because they do not come from leftist sources.

[Travis McGee]

Only the military and the police need guns.

Civilians are safer without them.

[oyez]

They won’t take the facts from proven sources if those facts are not in agreement of their position. Public Safety? Hah!

[TYVets]

Mayor Mike McGinn and City Attorney Pete Holmes played the “children and families” card. ,,,, "A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said.

Of course an unarmed 115 lb woman can defend herself and her kids against a 200 male with only her bare hands.

Liberal brains are missing the common sense gene.

[trebb]

Earlier this week, after a federal judge in Maryland declared that state’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for issuing a concealed carry permit in that state to be unconstitutional, the state Attorney General’s office played the “public safety” card in its effort to stay the judge’s ruling pending an appeal.

How about the 2nd Amendment as a "good and substantial reason"? Oh that's right - the dusty, outdated Constitution got it all wrong...

[CottShop]

every so often a child may die due an accidental shooting- however, how many more children die in a home because there wasw NO gun there to protect the child from criminals who are themselves armed? If more kids die in homes without guns, and the dems want homes to remain gun free- then why isn’;t the right slamming the left for NOT caring abnout children? Oh, that’s ruight, the right doesn’t want to upset the left! Because everyone knows it’s far worse to upset the left than it is to allow parents the RIGHT to protect their children against deliberate criminal acts by thugs with guns

[W. W. SMITH]

Citizens with no criminal record should be able, at will, to carry, concealed or open, any firearm they please, hand gun or long gun, anywhere they please without let or hindrance by government authorities.

“A LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSITITUION IS VOID.”
Chief Jusitice John Marshall

[marktwain]

Oh, that’s ruight, the right doesn’t want to upset the left! Because everyone knows it’s far worse to upset the left than it is to allow parents the RIGHT to protect their children against deliberate criminal acts by thugs with guns

The reason for this double standard is that the left controls virtually all the MSM. The right learned not to challange the media from 1960 - 1994. It is only since 1994 that the right has been able to control enough media to affect the debate in a meaningful way. We have been living under a "mediacracy" for many decades.