Washington Assault Weapons Ban Proposed

[cowgirlkaboom]

Here we go again: Military-style weapons ban proposed in Washington legislature

Read More

 

[woody06]

Typical political response. Politicians, when faced with a problem they can't solve, introduce meaningless legislation that will adversely impact law abiding citizens while doing nothing to solve the problem. Democrats lead the pack when it comes to firearms. Hopefully enough of them will realize that an "assault weapons" ban has been tried before and didn't have a measurable effect.

 

[spectra]

Figures its also backed by Seattle based groups...............

 

[uberguy]

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.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Figures its also backed by Seattle based groups...............

Hopefully by the former Seattle mayor?

 

[nwslopoke]

If one thing the Las Vegas shooting proved is no matter what measures the law puts up a determined person will make countermeasures.

Vegas is among the most tightly surveilled spots in the world, next to prison, yet they still have zero answers into how it happened . They say tighter background checks but never list or say what that means. Well it means they don't know because it doesn't matter. I never heard of a crip/blood or gun running biker gang getting background checks. You know, criminals.

Finally, someone please explain what more lethal means. More pregnant? More dead? They use scare tactics and we use facts. I don't argue gun rights I argue my personal rights. I may not convert a person but at least they realize I ain't budging.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I dislike it when someone says "You do not need..." as a basis for a law.
As in Washington Ceasefire President Facitelli's comments about not needing a certain style rifle for hunting or a certain magazine for home protection.

Who are you to tell someone what they need or not?
I could say:
You do not need to go to church ... Or at least you do not need to go to that particular type of church.
Or perhaps ...
You do not need to say that , or read that ... don't listen to that group...In fact let's limit how many words they can type or say.
It is just as ridiculous as saying that you do not need a certain gun or magazine type.
Andy
Edit to add:
Not wanting to derail the thread or cause offense.
Just asking : What if these ideas of just what guns or accessories that one "needs" were to be applied to just what one "needs" from the other Amendments.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Also I agree that this idea of "more lethal" is supremely stupid.
Someone shot dead in 1775 with a musket ball ... Is just as dead as an enemy soldier killed with rifle fire from the latest Infantry rifle on today's battlefield.
Dead is dead.
No one will ever say:
"Gee I'm glad Johnny was murdered with a rifle that did not have a flash hider , collapsible stock , bump fire stock , "high capacity" magazine etc ... But only shot with a rifle that fit some sorry dumbazz legal definition of a "safe" and "common sense" rifle."...
Andy

 

[Mikej]

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?

 

[Stomper]

We could do without Islam?

And all other organized religions.... too many megalomaniacs in charge of those circles, too!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

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

 

[Ralgha]

The only things anybody NEEDS are food, water, and some degree of shelter, so until they're willing to put forth legislation that bans EVERYTHING people don't need, they can STFU about what people need.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

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

 

[Stomper]

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

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.

 

[cookie]

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.

O.D.s don't scare the criminal politicians.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

60 rounds was the Militia "Standard" in many locals and time periods....
Andy

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.

 

[Stomper]

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

That was the point of my other comments.... where does it EVER end?




It always ends in..... death.

 

[Goosebrown]

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.

 

[Mikej]

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

I understand that Andy. Though I've always wondered why we can put so many restrictions on the right to own firearms in America and virtually none on the right to practice your religion of choice?

 

[Stomper]

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.

I'd rather they assume room temperature ASAFP so they don't suck up all the spendy pension money from the treasury.... or take up any more air from the rest of us.