Washington Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change - they allowa shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, ....

[sobo]

You are going to pop that bubble for people who call Hitler and the Nazis fascist. You can almost see that lightbulb above their head flicker when you ask them what the acronym "NAZI" stood for.

I know! I know!

 

[RX-79G]

You are going to pop that bubble for people who call Hitler and the Nazis fascist. You can almost see that lightbulb above their head flicker when you ask them what the acronym "NAZI" stood for.

Using that logic, I'm sure you'll be vacationing in the Democratic Republic of North Korea.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Of course a semi auto rifle will allow a shooter to fire as fast as they pull the trigger.
So does any firearm...as fast as you pull the trigger the gun will fire...it is what they are designed to do.
Now as far as loading and using certain firearms...that will be different.
Loading and using a semi auto rifle is faster , than say me loading and using one of my flintlock rifles.
However....both still "fire" as fast as I can pull the trigger.

In any event folks that make up rules , bans , laws and such about firearms need to understand what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in it does not say :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but only Arms of certain types and only for specific uses and purposes, shall not be infringed."

There is no limit placed on just what Arms the people can keep and bear in the original wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Andy

 

[nwslopoke]

In any event folks that make up rules , bans , laws and such about firearms need to understand what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in it does not say :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but only Arms of certain types and only for specific uses and purposes, shall not be infringed."

There is no limit placed on just what Arms the people can keep and bear in the original wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Andy

They well know it. They have to do anything and everything to make sure everyone else doesn't. The hope is, the ones holding on to their guns will die off or age out sooner or later.

I never see their point. Good policies and successful cities would eliminate the need for all these garbage laws they try to pass.

 

[monkeybutler]

Of course a semi auto rifle will allow a shooter to fire as fast as they pull the trigger.
So does any firearm...as fast as you pull the trigger the gun will fire...it is what they are designed to do.
Now as far as loading and using certain firearms...that will be different.
Loading and using a semi auto rifle is faster , than say me loading and using one of my flintlock rifles.
However....both still "fire" as fast as I can pull the trigger.

In any event folks that make up rules , bans , laws and such about firearms need to understand what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in it does not say :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but only Arms of certain types and only for specific uses and purposes, shall not be infringed."

There is no limit placed on just what Arms the people can keep and bear in the original wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Andy

There is all kinds of language in the law describing what that means. "A portion of energy from the expent round to load the next." It is remarkably clear that it is not simply pull the trigger as fast as you can but rather pull the trigger repeatedly with no need to cock, pump,etc. So kind of a strawman.

 

[American123]

Using that logic, I'm sure you'll be vacationing in the Democratic Republic of North Korea.

It's important to distinguish between reality and theoretical, because plenty of ideas operate a particular way in theory before implementation, but then in reality, after implementation they do not operate strictly as their idea phase suggested.

In reality, there is very little difference between "fascism" and Socialism / Communism as far as the experience of the people are concerned. They are all on the side of "less individual freedom" of the political spectrum. Ultimately they are just Oligarchies with the leadership in control, a figurehead representing that Oligarchy, and the common people have little to no built in means of recourse to address any time they are taken advantage of unless the Oligarchy desires them to have that.

Using North Korea as an example. They very well may be Democratic by definition if they hold an election for their leader. If their people are so absolutely brainwashed that no matter what they vote for the their leader, it's still democracy. If their leader has absolutely no limit on what the can do, once elected, that doesn't make it no longer a democracy, and it doesn't mean that all the atrocities that can take place still can't happen if they also don't have a codified series of individual rights built into their structure of law, it would still be "legal" if that country's laws say it is. That's why it's important to also understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic and what the Constitution / BOR does. In an absolute democracy, 51% of the vote determines everything. They could vote to make someone an absolute God/Emperor and vest all power in that one person until that one person "gave it back." 51% could vote to enslave the 49% and without a codified series if individual rights, it'd be legal.

The US being a Constitutional Republic, it was designed that Americans have individual rights, quite many actually, and that no matter how the populace votes, or the political leadership tries to demand, those rights are immutable (or at least that was the intention)

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were just so ridiculously magnificent in what they did to be the framework of this country. They removed (or at least tried to as best they could) the means through which historical all governments consolidated power into Oligarchies and dominated the common people. That was the whole point of them, to restrict the government and it's agents as much as possible while still allowing it to function for it's defined purposes and responsibilities.

It's actually only by the Constitution and Bill of rights that slavery had a legal (as in embedded into the US laws and Judicial System) method to be abolished. That's why despite Democrats overwhelmingly being upset about losing their slaves, they couldn't legally do anything about it, because "all" men had individual rights, even if some political leaders or voting blocs said they didn't.

 

[Yarome]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (click to expand)

Removing the partisanship from gun rights. Find and support the candidacy of Democrats that won't support gun control. (Single issue voter? Prove it.) Democrats know how democrats work better than anyone. Toe the line or face shaming, ridicule, find yourself subject of a scandal and your career destroyed. Not a bad idea, but also not very viable. Even if a democrat is semi pro-2A, supporting one also comes along with all the other democrat and liberal baggage. IE, Light on crime, public school indoctrination programs, open borders, etc etc etc.
Intercept bills that will likely pass and replace them with toothless versions that will pass with bipartisan support. IOW, present a compromise. Nope.
Find and fund talented lawyers that aren't playing to their fans when it comes to legislative legal challenges. (The 1240 lawyers are clearly amateurs.) With grassroots efforts you are often left with those that are "willing", and not always "top shelf". IOW, we don't always have much of a choice, a limited pool of private citizens aren't able to fund "top shelf" representation through long legal battles and sometimes have to take what we can get. Although a valid point.
Abandon mindless slogans. By your definition, "mindless" because you disagree, but they help to unite in a common cause, So IOW... abandon common ideals and engender a greater sense of compromise.
Look for allies rather than look to excommunicate those who don't embrace the "party line". IOW, be more accepting of the "I support the 2A, but..." crowd and be open to compromising our rights.
Vote out the old guard in NRA and replace them with real activists. With systemic corruption and long history of scandalous behavior, many believe that ship has sailed. More and more are shifting gears and supporting grassroots organizations. IE., GOA, FPC, SAF, etc. While a complete reworking of the NRA hierarchy would be ideal, "the people" have little hope of breaking their stronghold over the organization. It is sometimes better to cut off ones leg to save the body.
Embrace black victims of gun control (Philando Castile) Bad apples exist and unfortunate things happen. I doubt there is a single gun owner that doesn't recognize and sympathize with those injustices, but that's not going to put gun owner boots on the ground marching in BLM protests. Sorry. You also have to keep things in perspective. Although unfortunate situations are likely to continue to occur there are over 50mil LE interactions with citizens per year that don't end in tragedy. Expecting perfection in execution is not reasonable and I for one will continue to support LE. .
Push out those that mix guns with racism and hate. You are suggesting that gun owners embrace radical hate groups?? Each side has their extremists and does not in any way mean that gun owners support those groups simply because we own a firearm too.
Loudly and affirmatively lobby the gun industry to embrace training and responsibility from gun owners. That is not their responsibility. It is the individuals. Just like it's not the auto industries responsibility to ensure all of their customers undergo adequate driver's safety courses and are not responsible for auto accidents or vehicle misuse.
Blame mental health? Then make sure that your pro-gun legislators actually pass laws that protect us from the mentally ill getting or keeping guns. And that includes suicide. You seem to be unaware that there are already laws on the books that prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms. Identifying them and enforcing those laws is the issue, Addressing and providing preventative mental health services to subvert antisocial issues would more profoundly address those issues.(IE., in schools, for veterans, etc) but you would promote more gun control, anyway. If you are aware of a law that would prevent suicides, I would love to hear it!
Lobby the NAACP and ACLU to support the right to self defense. Right...... While we're at it, let's lobby the left to close the border and dismantle the ATF. They have an agenda to promote and have proven that they aren't going to give up their supporters $'s to champion ours.
Raise awareness of how potentially dangerous the US government and military are to the entire world and how US citizens are an armed force that check that power. That's far outside of the prevue of the "gun control" issue and more in the realm of geopolitics. Personally, I think the entire world is fully aware of the military might of the US... and that's a "good" thing.
Be pro-gun and nice at the same time. Disagreeing with your rhetoric doesn't mean we are being "mean". You also shouldn't confuse us not being open to listen to anti-gun views with how we react to you personally. The "listen to me and agree.. or your an idiot" attitude, as you may have noticed, doesn't get you far and shouldn't really come as any surprise.

What you don't seem to get is that a fundamental right that "shall not be infringed" means just that.
Would you be making the same "suggestions" against the 1A? "We should be open to compromise". "A little bit of censorship should be okay if the majority wants it." "If someone says something the majority doesn't like then the media outlet that allowed it to be published should have some responsibility for that." "We should pass laws to prevent those with radical ideas from being allowed to speak." "We should shun and push out those that say things we don't agree with." "We should support political candidates that don't support censorship... even if they are anti-2A and want children to be able to maim themselves without parental knowledge or consent".

That's the flawed ideology of the left.... that compromise of an inalienable right, guaranteed by the constitution, is "reasonable" and "common sense."

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The same year semi auto weapons were introduced, Basketball was invented, football helmets and moving pictures were as well. Incandescent lamps and Ferris wheels also appeared that year along with the rotary dial phone and bottle caps.

So we have politicians acting like this is new tech when it is literally as old as the light bulb, basketball and movies. It baffles the mind.

 

[Yarome]

The same year semi auto weapons were introduced, Basketball was invented, football helmets and moving pictures were as well. Incandescent lamps and Ferris wheels also appeared that year along with the rotary dial phone and bottle caps.

So we have politicians acting like this is new tech when it is literally as old as the light bulb, basketball and movies. It baffles the mind.

They seem to be trying to argue it more from the time of the founding fathers, but on it's face... that's a moot argument. Of course there have been technological advances, but it has no bearing on constitutional protections. To make such a claim is pretty ridiculous, but absent any actual grounds to infringe they have to make up something as a means to their ends... don't they.

 

[Kruel J]

Anyone changed their mind yet?

 

[bcp]

In 1905, both Remington and Winchester introduced semi-auto center-fire rifles with detachable magazines.

Winchester Model 1905 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remington Model 8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bruce

 

[RX-79G]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (click to expand)

What you don't seem to get is that a fundamental right that "shall not be infringed" means just that.
Would you be making the same "suggestions" against the 1A? "We should be open to compromise". "A little bit of censorship should be okay if the majority wants it." "If someone says something the majority doesn't like then the media outlet that allowed it to be published should have some responsibility for that." "We should pass laws to prevent those with radical ideas from being allowed to speak." "We should shun and push out those that say things we don't agree with." "We should support political candidates that don't support censorship... even if they are anti-2A and want children to be able to maim themselves without parental knowledge or consent".

That's the flawed ideology of the left.... that compromise of an inalienable right, guaranteed by the constitution, is "reasonable" and "common sense."

TL,DR.

I get that all fundamental rights are subject to regulation, and we are collectively too dumb to participate in the regulatory process, and have our heads so far up the right wing social agenda to see the value in having progun Democrats in elections that only Democrats are going to win.


Sorry if I'm not a "cut off my nose to spite my face" 2a supporter. I haven't had my lobotomy and NRA magic beverage yet

 

[RX-79G]

In 1905, both Remington and Winchester introduced semi-auto center-fire rifles with detachable magazines.

Winchester Model 1905 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remington Model 8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bruce

Both of which remain legal in WA.

 

[Yarome]

TL,DR.

I get that all fundamental rights are subject to regulation, and we are collectively too dumb to participate in the regulatory process, and have our heads so far up the right wing social agenda to see the value in having progun Democrats in elections that only Democrats are going to win.


Sorry if I'm not a "cut off my nose to spite my face" 2a supporter. I haven't had my lobotomy and NRA magic beverage yet

So much for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ignore what doesn't fall within your agenda. Got it!

All I can say is that if you equate the inalienable rights of the people outlined in the constitution of the United States as NRA brainwashing.... no one here can help you.

Leftist BS.

 

[solv3nt]

So much for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ignore what doesn't fall within your agenda. Got it!

All I can say is that if you equate the inalienable rights of the people outlined in the constitution of the United States as NRA brainwashing.... no one here can help you.

Leftist BS.

Why do you insist on feeding the cave troll?

 

[Yarome]

Why do you insist on feeding the cave troll?

I mainly posted to address those proposals for the benefit of others that might have thoughts along the same lines. I had no illusions that common sense or reason would dissuade him from his agenda. It's apparent he done already drank the blue kool aid and has proven to ignore anything that doesn't fall within his belief system. Belittle, condescend, insult and just plain make stuff up when challenged.... typical M.O. from the anti-2A'ers.



I'm aware...

 

[RX-79G]

I mainly posted to address those proposals for the benefit of others that might have thoughts along the same lines. I had no illusions that common sense or reason would dissuade him from his agenda. It's apparent he done already drank the blue kool aid and has proven to ignore anything that doesn't fall within his belief system. Belittle, condescend, insult and just plain make stuff up when challenged.... typical M.O. from the anti-2A'ers.



I'm aware...

You are easily the most insulting person I haven't ignored on this forum.

 

[Kruel J]

You are easily the most insulting person I haven't ignored on this forum.

Now I'm insulted.

 

[solv3nt]

Now I'm insulted.

ROFL

Why do you insist on feeding the cave troll?

 

[Kruel J]

Look, insults happen all the time. Whether backhanded, intentional, implied or accidental. They are, after all, feelings based and different people take it differently. In my experience, personally and professionally, the people that complain about being insulted the most are usually the ones doing the most insulting. Funny how that works.