I was confident I would hear from you dipchit. Too bad you don't
really know anything but butttalk.

That's the weird part. I agree there's no reason to create a law if one/several already exist to cover the crime. But if one already exists, why hasn't anyone been charged with reckless endangerment?





Proud member of VFW and American Legion; too rational to be NRA.

No one has been charged with anything because the investigation is on going.

Since nobody will attempt to answer the questions I asked before, let me ask you another one:

If the mother or boyfriend were convicted of reckless endangerment what do you believe is an appropriate sentence?

In Washington State reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 1 year. Is that appropriate in this case?

Have any of you actually read the bill?

I'd encourage you to.

It doens't make a new law, or "duplicate" or "exploit" anything at all...it just adds to the definition of "reckless endangerment" in the Reckless Endangerment Act...and also adds a whole bunch of exceptions and exemptions from the Act to limit its application.

The only "exploitation" going on here is the NRA and their ilk exploiting your fear and kneejerk willingness to send off outraged emails (along with your NRA fees) at anything they tell you to...trying to make themselves seem important and useful so they can get your money by making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6628.pdf

Fish on...

Todd

the more i get to know dogfish, the more i like him.

+1



willy

Marsha, nice way to attempt to change the focus. It appears that the Mom and/or her boyfriend were guilty of unlawful possession prior to the shooting of the little girl. I would certainly like to see the Mom and her boyfried pay specifically for the grief they have caused the little girl and her family.

Golly Todd I think the ACLU could use you if your inane perspective doesn't make you ineffective. They have an agenda that seems to fit your stance. They could use a bit of levity in their operations.

Thanks, I realized that this morning after reading a follow-up story in the paper.

Seriously...that's all you've got?

Weak sister.

Fish on...

Todd

Lawyers love this stuff. They envision themselves as Saviors of the Down-Trodden, when in fact they have effectively removed the populace's ability to defend themselves.
This is a tragic accident. Terrible, in fact. But an accident nonetheless. I think we should disembowel the boy for being a boy.

Speak up here, who keeps a loaded gun for defense in their safe?? Who also thinks their children or someone else's child could never find/use their weapon? Because if you have figured out a good way to accomplish the two items mentioned, I'd like to know, because I have a loaded weapon at all times in a convenient place and ready for use. My kids are all grown and gone, but the grandkids come around regularly. At those times I move the instrument of death to a safe place, but it is also ineffective for use as a defensive weapon.

On the other hand, a new law would make all that better, right?

edit: spellcheck works if used.....duh

This "new" "anti-gun" law isn't new, nor does it remove one single gun from anyone, anywhere...in spite of what the NRA talking points memo says.

Fish on...

Todd

Actually it moves it from a place of immediate convenience for self defense to a safe or place of immediate inconvenience, like a safe.

So which is it?

A "duplicative law" that does nothing...or a new law that renders the 2nd Amendment abolished in Washington State?

It has to be one or the other...not both.

Whatever dimwit wrote the original fear piece seems to think it's a duplicative law that does nothing, but still manages to be anti-gun and make the world a more dangerous place.

That's why I was encouraging people to first read the bill before firing off your dues the NRA and your outraged emails to the Senator, so at least you'd have some idea what the bill is trying to do and could speak intelligently about it.

As I said before, the only "kneejerk" and "exploitative" rhetoric I'm seeing her is from the writer of the original copied/pasted piece, and then from some here.

Fish on...

todd

It doesn't have to be one or the other but it is certainly duplicative and unnecessary. It won't do a GD'd thing to save anyone but it will make sheep feel safe and comfy knowing they passed another law.

Are you really of the mind that this law will stop people that have no intention to follow laws?

There are countless laws that were broke in this accident any and all of those could and should lead to the prosecution of the guilty party/ies.

Charges are being filed against Mom & her boyfriend.

Yup..as they should be.

But one more law on the books woulda' prevented the whole thing. At least as far as the mindless minions are concerned.

Most criminal laws prevent very little...and the same people who champion your gun rights are the same ones who are very un-interested in prevention and rehabilitation, but go big into retribution and incarceration.

Fish on...

Todd

True but in this case there are enough laws on the books to effectively prosecute those responsible. Another law does nothing to prevent or deter this type of thing in the future. Furthermore this incident, as tragic and sad as it is, is really an isolated case. At least as far as age and intent is concerned.

I'm not against laws per se and certainly don't advocate anarchy but creating more laws while ignoring the ones on the books is not a good response.

What are your ideas on prevention and rehabilitation?