Governor Inslee sinks to new level of petty by refusing to sign certificates for marksmanship champs

Status
Not open for further replies.
How so? Not everything political is “political correctness”. This is just the Washington state governor playing to the “NRA is an evil bogeyman” line to drum up his base. He has turned something completely non-political into something political. It’s pathetic, really.

It reminds me a bit of when the mayor of NYC started calling the NYPD a bunch of racist killers to play to the mob, then suddenly realized that we do, in fact, need police departments.

This is such a small event in Washington, I don’t expect anyone to pay much attention. Which is also exactly why the Governor decided to spurn the marksmanship competition. The governor wants to talk about “common sense”, but can’t seem to grasp that events like this marksmanship competition create “common sense” firearms use.
 
In other words, if he isn’t taking your view on firearms, he’s crossing a line in to incorrect speech. He should realize that whatever his view, a pro gun stance is the only view that should be publicly expressed.w
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
It reminds me a bit of when the mayor of NYC started calling the NYPD a bunch of racist killers to play to the mob, then suddenly realized that we do, in fact, need police departments.
Click to expand...
Huh? I live in NYC, and have for nearly 60 years. I don’t remember the mayor (the current or any other mayor) calling the NYPD “a bunch of racist killers.”

Maybe I was out of town that week.
 
niceatheist said:
So to take a dim view of firearms is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...
This is much more about gun safety than proliferation of weapons.
I want my police or military to be accurate and thoughtful shooters, if the occasion arises. This isn’t a programs for primary students.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
An excellent example of conservatives’ own form of political correctness.
Click to expand...
And by that you mean patriotism and general support for the rule of law?
Click to expand...
Being able to shoot a gun very accurately is just a skill that could be used to defend the country, but is more often used to break up clay pigeons, kill rabbits, deer, etc. It is neutral with regard to patriotism, do cross that out. As for “rule of law,” there is no law requiring the governor to sign marksmanship certificates, so cross out that one too. It is political correctness.
Theo520 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
So to take a dim view of firearms is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...
This is much more about gun safety than proliferation of weapons.
Click to expand...
It is about neither. It is about the skill of hitting a target more accurately than others. They might just as well sign certificates for people who win a playing Jeopardy. They are skilled too.
I want my police or military to be accurate and thoughtful shooters, if the occasion arises. This isn’t a programs for primary students.
Click to expand...
The program is called the “Civilian Marksmanship Program.” It is for all gun owners, both police and civilian. If you want your police to be thoughtful shooters, add more training programs. Honoring those who win a contest that only a small fraction of the police participate in does very little to raise the thoughtfulness level of police in general.

The right to bear arms is one thing. The requirement that we subsidize the celebration of those who do it well is quite another. It is a little like the difference between decriminalizing homosexual acts and celebrating gay marriage.
 
My chief observation is simply that the right has its own sacred cows, and its reaction is just as hyperbolic as conservatives keep accusing Liberals to be. Ergo, conservatives have their own form of political correctness.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The right to bear arms is one thing. The requirement that we subsidize the celebration of those who do it well is quite another. It is a little like the difference between decriminalizing homosexual acts and celebrating gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Except that there is no benefit to the nation or society at large in condoning or supporting homosexuality. There is however, a benefit to having people willing to keep and bear arms.

There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, among others, that states, "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
 
The US has amongst the highest level of gun crime in the developed world.

Sleep soundly.
 
Last edited:
Lol it’s not incorrect speech. It’s just complete silliness. As governor of an American State, he is in charge of that state’s security. Which includes firearms use. Historically, these marksmanship competitions promote good police training and responsible firearm use by the public. And yet the Governor wants to disassociate with them because he wants to make a political statement.

So you tell me, who is the one making this political? The marksmanship competition that has been in existence for 100yrs that every governor from every party has supported? Or the current governor who decides he apparently can’t in good conscience sign some certificates denoting good citizenship because several persons removed, the scores are submitted to the NRA? Who is evil because?
 
MikeInVA said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The right to bear arms is one thing. The requirement that we subsidize the celebration of those who do it well is quite another. It is a little like the difference between decriminalizing homosexual acts and celebrating gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Except that there is no benefit to the nation or society at large in condoning or supporting homosexuality. There is however, a benefit to having people willing to keep and bear arms.

There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, among others, that states, "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
Click to expand...
The “rough men” Churchill was referring to were professional police or military - not private citizens with their guns. I am more likely to be killed by a private citizen with a gun as being protected by such. They do not help me sleep soundly. I don’t think the governor would have any problem signing marksmanship certificates for a contest open only to law enforcement personnel. His objection was to the implied affirmation by government of the NRA - a private organization whose mission is, in his opinion, so narrowly focused on gun owners and the gun industry. Such affirmation needs to be earned. No private organization has a right to it.
 
From the article (emphasis mine):

“The Governor’s 20 has been around for years — it’s a competition of law enforcement officers [who] are competing for skills,” Jane Milhans of the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association told me.
 
Also from the article:
One of the winners last year in the civilian competition was a 16-year-old female high school junior.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they let 16-year-old high school students simultaneously serve as law enforcement officers. The competition is obviously not closed to civilians.
 
Last edited:
From the NRA website:

The NRA Governor’s Twenty Program was designed to recognize the top twenty law enforcement officers from each state for excellence in Police Combat competition. Each state’s program is administered by the respective league or association. Typically, the top three scores for each officer is averaged, and the top twenty officers ranked and recognized at a banquet at the end of their season. Below you will find the number one shooter from each state.

I would assume that they had additional categories of competitors that allowed non-law enforcement to participate.
 
Last edited:
This is called “glory stealing.” The civilians with their guns want to be thought of in the same was as professional law enforcement and receive praise and affirmation because of that association.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Of course he did not use those words, but I am sure you remember the NYPD turning their backs to him and refusing to pursue a lot of crime a few years ago:
Click to expand...
I distinctly remember the NYPD turning their backs to de Blasio (and, by the way, I’m no fan of Mayor De Blasio).

I believe their opposition to the Mayor was in response to his opposition of New York’s “stop and frisk” policy. Many New Yorkers, including myself, opposed this practice, and the Police Department supported it. The NYPD is not accustomed to being contradicted, even by its boss, and reacted, in my opinion, improperly, forgetting who they serve and at whose direction they serve. The police department was used to absolute deference from the officials elected by the people, and were shocked when they didn’t get it from de Blasio, and reacted in a childish manner and threw a tantrum (and they did worse to David Dinkins).

As the article to which you link says:
It is a short trip from this morbid request [that the mayor not attend police funerals] to scapegoating the mayor in a tragedy for which no one is responsible but the criminal who pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...
But at no time did de Blasio call the NYPD racist killers. Didn’t happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top