- Messages
- 124
- Reactions
- 240
Here we go again: Military-style weapons ban proposed in Washington legislature
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hopefully by the former Seattle mayor?Figures its also backed by Seattle based groups...............
You do not need to go to church ... Or at least you do not need to go to that particular type of church.
We could do without Islam?
The dangers of banning a gun or religion is that if one is banned ... then the same can happen to any of the others.
Andy
O.D.s don't scare the criminal politicians.WA State had all of 11 deaths by any type of rifle in 2016 per the FBI's latest Uniform Crime Report released last week.
King County had 30 times that number of overdose deaths.
I think we should ban musket ball sacks.... you don't need to carry that many musket balls. Your pocket can can hold 6-10.... and you don't need more than one pocket, come to think about it.
Also it was not my intent to start a new debate or discussion on religion ....I just wanted to make a point of:
What if these same arguments and thoughts about what guns you need or don't were applied to other Amendments .
Sorry for any offense or "derailment"
Andy
Also it was not my intent to start a new debate or discussion on religion ....I just wanted to make a point of:
What if these same arguments and thoughts about what guns you need or don't were applied to other Amendments .
Sorry for any offense or "derailment"
Andy
The bill of rights is not a smorgasbord where you pick the rights you like and serve them up to everyone. When you allow one right to wither or die you threaten the rest.
You should only have access to the arms they had at the time they signed the constitution. Well. No. Perhaps your speech should only be protected on letterpress printed books or when to speak to people directly.
Once you stipulate to that, the argument becomes that Heller misinterpreted the 2nd amendment. OK. SHOW ME ONE decision before Heller that stated that it was a collective right. Just. One. Decision.
So the next argument is that assault rifles at least are so dangerous that at least they must be banned. Heller sets the border of protected at fully automatic arms like the M16. Semi automatics are protected. The Brady campaign says there were 163 murders following the end of the ban. 16 per year. More people die in lightning strikes... the proverbial rare death.
Then they argue well you don't need them to hunt. Read Daniel Webster's tracts before the constitutional convention or the federalist papers. It wasn't there to protect the right to hunt.
The framers were afraid of the big cities just like we are now. No guarantee of personal rights? No constitution. It isn't about a need it is about an idea that we are individuals. We aren't part of a herd or some great commons, we are individuals
No compromises.
None.
whil I believe Trump is a true retard in all word means, a vile common Cretan, he's the one person that is going to move our cause forward by packing the judiciary.
Pray that Ginsberg and Stevens have long and happy lives in retirement. We need them gone before our perfect storm ends.