Washington HB 1068 - Standard Capacity Magazine ban

[RailwayMan]

Anyone who registers anything under these illegal "laws" is aiding and abetting, and also "illegal" ... ignore this BS ...

 

[Diamondback]

One of the big problems I've seen with WAC is that they aren't very tech savvy and don't attract a lot of new blood. Maybe if they could start networking to build cross-org engagement with groups like TWAW, Second Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols etc... they really need to work on being seen as more than a bunch of grumpty old guys Fuddsturbating their Bambi-Blasters. So do most of the ranges around here.

 

[Boss]

^^gmerkt...a lot of very good points there. A bachelor with a futon and is a far cry from a two income family. Unfortunately, there will likely be families torn apart by what's occurring as folks try to get somewhere, at least for awhile, where they're not being vilified and literally turned into criminals by gleeful politicians who couldn't care less as long as it gets them the votes to stay bellied up to the trough.

Right now, first and foremost, political agendas need to get set aside and there needs to be some serious unity building for pro 2A folks for next few months. Nobody should care who'll get the credit, promotion or brownie points. Every range, shooting club, gunshop, forum etc. needs to get on the same page and proactively participate. Period.

That will come with local, focused, energized boots-on-the ground leadership that is completely focused on Washington. WA is becoming a 'battleground' state for gun control and we need a BIG step up from the big associations. Yes, there's the NRA, SAF (which fortunately is WA based) and WAC. We know the names Gottlieb and Workman. But who else? They can't do it all. There's the WA State Rifle & Pistol Association (The NRA's officially listed state association). So far, not much, if anything from them. We need 'official' representatives going to matches/ranges/gunshops/gunshows at every possible opportunity and spreading the word and try to get some less aware folks to realize their 'That'll never happen' mindset is naïve at best. The past couple gunshops I've been too, including one listed as an 'activist center' is lackluster at best. It's gonna take more than putting some bumper stickers on the counter. When the media calls and asks for an opinion, they should have a well written statement to email to them.

There is supposed to be some big (national?) rally May 10th (a Friday). This needs to start being coordinated, along with perhaps a weekend or two rally (many of us actually work for a living). 5000+ peaceful demonstrators would get noticed, regardless of the day. Some weekdays if folks can make it to. And those that do need to realize, they'll need to get their early so they're not packed out of hearings by the busloads of orange t-shirts crowd.

And as previously posted numerous times, law abiding gun owners need to work on reaching out to improve their image. Free range days, safety training, and the like. And the all the positives the NRA does in fact do needs to be broadcast, over and over. All the safety education, Eddie Eagle, etc etc etc.

And we need to get out our own echo chamber here in this particularly little sub-forum. Hopefully y'all are working to educate your family, friends, and fellow shooters. Hopefully the powers that be will choose to help spread the word by posting in other more mainstream areas too.

BOSS

 

[bikemutt]

I know a few old timers that vociferously despise "black rifles", there is no quantity of breath left in my body which could convince them otherwise. "High" capacity magazines fall into the same sphere.

 

[Boss]

^^ Yep, and they're too blissfully ignorant to realize they're being a weaponized pawn in their own undoing as their beloved 'acceptable' 700 Remmy or Winchester 70 with its nice walnut stock is only a few more increments down the path...

This is why politics need to be put aside and a united front needs to be put up...black rifle, semi-auto, pump, musket, whatever...

BOSS

 

[Diamondback]

Listen up, Elmer Fudd, you help them take mine I'm gonna help them take yours.

 

[shibbershabber]

Yeah, all those old timers will be gone by the time jack-booted SJWs come for his sniper rifle, err uhh, I mean his deer rifle...

They're pretty much a write off at this point.

Its the younger people that I wish would get it together...
I was hopeful that the popularity of video games like CoD, etc would generate interest in owning guns like those in the game...... Still not sure if that had an effect.

They are the key though, thats why the big push for blocking 18-21yr olds from buying rifles is out there... they know that if they can delay that long enough... many will lose interest in the idea, etc or otherwise give up on it.

 

[shibbershabber]

Listen up, Elmer Fudd, you help them take mine I'm gonna help them take yours.

I hate everything about your statement.... and yet love it at the same time.

I always thought it would be fun to push a ban on alcohol after guns are gone. Afterall, if we can ban guns because of 11k killings, why not ban booze over the 10500 DUI deaths? OR the over 80000 alcohol related medical deaths annually? Or consider the toll when it comes to non-vehicular accidents, domestic violence, assaults..... the public cost is far higher. And afterall, its not a right... should be a slam dunk, right? I mean if it saves one life, its worth it... right?

 

[Diamondback]

@shibbershabber I hate having to say or even THINK it, but the only way Elmer Fudd sides with us is when HIS interests are threatened, so we need to make it known with crystal clarity that if he burns our house down his own is gonna be cinders right along with ours.

 

[CV-66]

Crying shame we can't pool our money together, purchase a really big island somewhere. Standby to repel borders!

 

[Diamondback]

Crying shame we can't pool our money together, purchase a really big island somewhere. Standby to repel borders!

Could always do it the Chinese way and BUILD our own... Not easy or cheap, but could be done.

Or get some old oil platforms, string 'em together and build Sealand West...
Principality of Sealand - Wikipedia

 

[Zathras]

As someone who moved (for many reasons, but freedom was a big one) his whole family a year and a half ago, it is an ordeal. It takes time to prepare (multiple years in our case), as you typically have to save money to do it and you have to be committed. Fortunately, my wife was on-board, but as a one-income family, it was easier for us to part ways with the job vs. multiple income dynamics. I was slowly losing said job anyway, due to my 'privilege' and my conservative viewpoints.

The gun grabbers celebrate the urbanization of America as progress, where most of the higher-paying jobs are and, as others have mentioned, medical facilities, etc. are all located, creating dependence or at least preference upon proximity to a city. They are banking on the fact that spouses and other people in your life are *not* supportive of moving. The 'golden handcuffs' of a high-paying job and family pressures all get weighed against the other side of infringements, inconveniences, taxes/fees imposed upon the gun owning 'half' of the family, so the hope is that it will cause them to give up, make peace and 'settle'. Many are doing exactly that.

I saw too many guys go through this in the area I departed. It wasn't even about moving, as that's a personal decision with many factors/people involved. My problem was that wherever people decide to plant roots they have to get involved locally. There were too many, even with ever-increasing infringements, who could/would not (and most still do not) lift a finger to fight the prevailing anti-gun sentiment where they live or the constant virtue-signaling, anti-American stance of the modern social structure or even in the workplace. I'd say that multiculturalism's hold upon corporate life is dang-near complete. Many will not risk upsetting their place in the delicate social balance, and have built up too much to lose by risking their jobs or reputations in defense of, support for, and sadly, the all-too-necessary 'advocacy' for freedom. These days, that's what it takes - explaining to people that you actually want the government to continue to recognize your rights, and that you believe in continuing to exercise them. Instead people join marches to vote your rights away and grant entitlements (that you pay for) to others.

Many in these situations just hide their guns, sneak to the range once or twice a year, sneak on back home, all the while, being proud to call themselves a 'liberal gun owner'. They can play both sides, sound diplomatic and balanced, enlightened, educated, reasoned and moral by having 'common-sense discussions' about 'gun violence epidemics', all the while investing time, money and energy in a life-long, always failing, struggle to make reparations for their 'privilege'. Many are no different than your average Fudd, and are a fair-bit worse since most of them are under 40 so they'll be around awhile longer to continue to vote D. They like to also throw in 'brave' comments (because shouting down people who they already outnumber 100-1 is now brave) about how you are the problem and that you're the one who isn't part of 'their' America.

 

[svxr8dr]

The choice is simple. Either we start ignoring these laws and dare them to arrest us all en masse (or worse) , or we decide Article 1 Section 24 doesnt mean what it says and we just be good little serf's working for the 21st century version of the company store (i.e All Hail the Mighty Paternal Government.) keep our mouths shut, work until we grow old watch our children grow up in even worse conditions until we die.

 

[rustedangel]

I personally find myself agreeing with the Ricochet article someone posted Tuesday. "Nobody cares about your rights. They care about their rights". I've tried to explain to friends who I thought were more open minded about why I think gun rights are good for individuals and society. The reaction is almost universally negative, comprised of:
1) What about my right not to get shot?
2) Pffff you're delusional if you think you'll ever have to shoot someone in self defense
3) You're even more delusional if you think an armed citizenry is a deterrent to a tin foil hat tyrannical government that will never happen in the US. How are you going to fight a tank with a rifle?

Maybe I just suck at rhetoric. But I have to hope there is a way to convince some people that preserving the freedom to buy tools of self defense is good for everyone.

 

[Boss]

I saw too many guys go through this in the area I departed. It wasn't even about moving, as that's a personal decision with many factors/people involved. My problem was that wherever people decide to plant roots they have to get involved locally. There were too many, even with ever-increasing infringements, who could/would not (and most still do not) lift a finger to fight the prevailing anti-gun sentiment where they live or the constant virtue-signaling, anti-American stance of the modern social structure or even in the workplace. I'd say that multiculturalism's hold upon corporate life is dang-near complete. Many will not risk upsetting their place in the delicate social balance, and have built up too much to lose by risking their jobs or reputations in defense of, support for, and sadly, the all-too-necessary 'advocacy' for freedom. These days, that's what it takes - explaining to people that you actually want the government to continue to recognize your rights, and that you believe in continuing to exercise them. Instead people join marches to vote your rights away and grant entitlements (that you pay for) to others.

Yep. But keep in mind, up until recently it was only threats of mostly prohibiting purchases/transfers with grandfathering thrown in. It's one thing to say 'You won't be able to buy anymore, but you can keep what you have.' Many folks will just be 'OK, well, that sucks...I just won't buy anything else.'

It's a whole other level to say 'those are banned,' ie. you WON'T be able to keep what you have. What needs to happen is for all law abiding gun owners to realize the extremists aren't going to stop with 'evil' guns...after those, they'll be trying to coming back for the next type, and then the next, and then the next...

Hopefully the strong law enforcement opposition to 1639 hasn't completely evaporated.

Many in these situations just hide their guns, sneak to the range once or twice a year, sneak on back home, all the while, being proud to call themselves a 'liberal gun owner'. They can play both sides, sound diplomatic and balanced, enlightened, educated, reasoned and moral by having 'common-sense discussions' about 'gun violence epidemics', all the while investing time, money and energy in a life-long, always failing, struggle to make reparations for their 'privilege'. Many are no different than your average Fudd, and are a fair-bit worse since most of them are under 40 so they'll be around awhile longer to continue to vote D. They like to also throw in 'brave' comments (because shouting down people who they already outnumber 100-1 is now brave) about how you are the problem and that you're the one who isn't part of 'their' America.

This may be more true in the major urban centers and surround suburbia, but you get outside of those, and there's still plenty of folks who openly/proudly participate in the shooting/outdoor sports, which is why its is absolutely astonishing WA is losing so quickly. It has a large hunter/outdoor enthusiast population.

And if you have some of the next generation coming up, do your best to share/teach our heritage.

Keep spreading the word. We really need a local, enthusiastic full-time leader unifying the ranges, gunshops, and all gun owners (stomp-stomp, cough-cough).

$.02 worth.
BOSS

 

[Diamondback]

Rusted, plank-by-plank counterarguments in bold.

1) What about my right not to get shot? Don't be a f***wad threatening people and trying to jack their s**t, and you probably won't get shot, yo'--It's Not Complicated.
2) Pffff you're delusional if you think you'll ever have to shoot someone in self defense When seconds count, police are an hour away, and that's ONE deputy in my entire half the county on graveyard shift.
3) You're even more delusional if you think an armed citizenry is a deterrent to a tin foil hat tyrannical government that will never happen in the US. How are you going to fight a tank with a rifle? You DON'T fight tanks with rifles. You wait until the crew have to pop out for a latrine call and snipe 'em (either headshoot, or if you really wanna demoralize their buddies nutshoot and leave 'em to bleed out) then. Or you hit the softer targets they depend on to keep 'em fighting, like the fuel and ammo trucks, or the maintenance guys. Especially the latter--it takes a lot of skill to maintain high-tech machinery, and it takes a lot of time and money to replace that knowledge when a guerrilla/partisan/insurgent's bullet splatters it all over the dirt. And that's only STIPULATING that the insurgent team plays relatively "nice"--most places that these fights have gone down, families have been considered "fair game" too. Then again, the Left has already demonstrated that they will only violate the "family off the table" rule given the SLIGHTEST opportunity...

 

[Boss]

I personally find myself agreeing with the Ricochet article someone posted Tuesday. "Nobody cares about your rights. They care about their rights". I've tried to explain to friends who I thought were more open minded about why I think gun rights are good for individuals and society. The reaction is almost universally negative, comprised of:
1) What about my right not to get shot?
2) Pffff you're delusional if you think you'll ever have to shoot someone in self defense
3) You're even more delusional if you think an armed citizenry is a deterrent to a tin foil hat tyrannical government that will never happen in the US. How are you going to fight a tank with a rifle?

Maybe I just suck at rhetoric. But I have to hope there is a way to convince some people that preserving the freedom to buy tools of self defense is good for everyone.

According to the DOJ, 1.03 Million Home Invasions happen every year. Do they think making decent, law-abiding people defenseless will make the number go down, or up?

Right now, criminals have to play the very real 'lottery' with very good odds of encountering a legally armed home owner if they break/enter/home invade. Taking away that deterrence is unlikely to have a positive result on those that can't afford to live in gated neighborhoods with security.

Even the anti-gun folks benefit from the current state of things--which is why you don't see 'This is a gun free-home' posted on many lawns, including the proclaimed gun-haters.

$02 worth.

BOSS

 

[shibbershabber]

For #1:

You don't have a right to not get shot. Please show me where that is?
OR
Your right to not get shot IS the 2nd Amendment. Arm yourself and don't be a victim


#2

Two million times (FBI) people use personal firearms to stop crimes. Even if 95% of those reports are bullbubblegum... That's 10000 lives saved by personal firearms.
What are THOSE lives worth?


#3

100 million people use their guns peacefully and without revolution, etc... The futility of rebellion is no reason to disarm an entire population.

OR

Afghanistan held off the world's greatest powers with nothing but small arms... More or less are doing the same to this day.

 

[rustedangel]

Thanks for the ideas Boss, Diamondback, Shibbershabber!

For #1:

You don't have a right to not get shot. Please show me where that is?
OR
Your right to not get shot IS the 2nd Amendment. Arm yourself and don't be a victim

I disagree, everyone DOES have a right not to be shot, as long as they are not violating someone else's rights. Just because it's not enumerated in the bill of rights doesn't mean it's not right.

I think know what you're getting at - people have to be responsible for their own safety, and there is no guarantee that life is fair or that nothing bad will ever happen. But I think a non-gun person might hear what you said as "This guy doesn't care if people die in mass shootings". Well we don't want anyone to die in mass shootings either! Or during home invasions, muggings, etc. We care about minimizing crime and violence too! We just think preserving people's access to tools of self defense helps more than hinders that goal.

Someone might also think "I shouldn't HAVE to own a gun to avoid being a victim of a crime!". I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation either. I bought my first gun because I wanted to know how to shoot and thought they were neat. If I thought a neighborhood was so bad I had to have a gun to stay safe there, I would get the heck out of that area. But I have a good job and save money, it's not hard for me to move to a new area. For a very poor person living in a dangerous area, a $300 Kel-Tec might be the least bad option available to them for security. A deposit on a new apartment might be 2 years worth of saving for them, or impossible until they can improve their credit. I care about that person too, and I think for some of them owning a gun is a good way to improve their safety.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to tear you down. I'm trying to think about how to convince people in favor of more gun regulation to see that I also care about having a safe society, and that maybe guns help more than they hinder.

 

[Diamondback]

"If we lived in a world of SHOULDs, nobody would ever need to lock their doors at night. However, we live in a world where there are two kinds: Predators and Prey, and if you can't put up enough fight to convince the Predators you're too high-risk of Prey, you WILL be lunch."

The fossil record alone proves this, the trend of ever-bigger and larger-horned Triceratops-type dinosaurs and ever thicker-armored, ever-heavier-tailclubbed ankylosaurs in response to the ever-bigger and ever-more-powerful tyrannosaurs is all the proof of this natural order one should ever need.

If you look like lunch you WILL be eaten, simple as that. So don't look like lunch.