Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Ed Murry proposes that .GOV obtain a monopoly on the ownership of weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Ed Murry proposes that .GOV obtain a monopoly on the ownership of weapons

    http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily..._bill_prop.php

    Get ready for a knock-down drag-out battle.

    Of course, there's been a lot of talk about reviving a national assault weapons ban since the Connecticut massacre. But Washington Ceasefire board president Ralph Fascitelli doesn't hold out much hope for that in the Republican-controlled Congress. Apparently, neither does New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who this week called for an assault weapons ban in his state.

    Fascitelli says the bill his group is pushing would be more effective than the federal ban passed by Congress in 1994, which expired ten years later due to a sunset clause. The federal ban outlawed specific models of guns, and wasn't comprehensive. "The ban we're talking about would be feature-specific," Fascitelli says. "It would ban anything with a detachable clip that has more than 10 bullets."

    Such guns allow for rapid firing of multiple bullets, making them the kind of weapons that are frequently used in mass shootings, as was the case at Sandy Hook. Shooter Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 with clips that carried 30 rounds. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, but it doesn't include the AR 15 because of technicalities. The proposed Washington ban would.

    Fascitelli contends the proposed ban would be effective in Washington for another reason also: its physical size. "In D.C. or Chicago, you're close to other states," he says. If bans were enacted there, someone who wanted an assault rifle could just take a quick ride to Maryland (in the case of D.C.) or Indiana (in the case of Chicago). At least from the Seattle area, however, "it's basically 120 miles to another state," Fascietelli says.

    Murray agreed to be a sponsor yesterday, according to Fascitelli, who observes that gun control is probably a "great issue" for him as a mayoral candidate. The senator couldn't be reached for comment.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    There will be the usual arguments back and forth as to whether certain types of weapons are useful for target practice, hunting, and sporting purposes. However, those discussions are side show diversions for the real issue, which is:

    1) Why is the government justified in holding a monopoly on the ownership of effective defensive weapons?
    2) What happens when governments hold a monopoly on the ownership of effective defensive weapons?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!

    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5345

    If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

    According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

    “She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

    “On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

    “Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

    “It is a gun confiscation bill.

    “The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

    “It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

    The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

    See the report at:

    http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne...-in-your-guns/

    Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

    “The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it!
    They’re targeting EVERYTHING–rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

    “You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

    “Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.

    “If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

    “–Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;

    “–Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’–which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’

    “–Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

    “–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;

    “–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

    “And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

    See the report at:

    http://tiny.cc/5urcqw

    As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

    “Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

    In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    See my column at:

    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5335

    And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

    Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.

    Here’s how we must fight:

    1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.

    We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states–which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

    Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms–including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

    Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

    2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

    Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

    This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

    3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms–including our semi-automatic rifles.

    Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

    It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.

    There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms–including a semi-automatic rifle–I absolutely refuse to comply!

    My line in the sand is drawn here!

    Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

    It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country–not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom–hang in the balance.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily..._bill_prop.php

    Get ready for a knock-down drag-out battle.

    Of course, there's been a lot of talk about reviving a national assault weapons ban since the Connecticut massacre. But Washington Ceasefire board president Ralph Fascitelli doesn't hold out much hope for that in the Republican-controlled Congress. Apparently, neither does New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who this week called for an assault weapons ban in his state.

    Fascitelli says the bill his group is pushing would be more effective than the federal ban passed by Congress in 1994, which expired ten years later due to a sunset clause. The federal ban outlawed specific models of guns, and wasn't comprehensive. "The ban we're talking about would be feature-specific," Fascitelli says. "It would ban anything with a detachable clip that has more than 10 bullets."

    Such guns allow for rapid firing of multiple bullets, making them the kind of weapons that are frequently used in mass shootings, as was the case at Sandy Hook. Shooter Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 with clips that carried 30 rounds. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, but it doesn't include the AR 15 because of technicalities. The proposed Washington ban would.

    Fascitelli contends the proposed ban would be effective in Washington for another reason also: its physical size. "In D.C. or Chicago, you're close to other states," he says. If bans were enacted there, someone who wanted an assault rifle could just take a quick ride to Maryland (in the case of D.C.) or Indiana (in the case of Chicago). At least from the Seattle area, however, "it's basically 120 miles to another state," Fascietelli says.

    Murray agreed to be a sponsor yesterday, according to Fascitelli, who observes that gun control is probably a "great issue" for him as a mayoral candidate. The senator couldn't be reached for comment.
    That idiot Ralphy thinks 120 miles would be an impediment to obtaining a firearm? What a dolt!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by dadada View Post
    That idiot Ralphy thinks 120 miles would be an impediment to obtaining a firearm? What a dolt!
    I don't think he's simply "dumb". I think he's a collectivist who wants the public to live in fear of criminals and .GOV. People like this want to have their way with you, and that means you must be disarmed first. They are perfectly willing to commit the police to the task of breaking down doors, even if that means that the police get decimated and chewed up in the process.

    Oh, by the way, some police departments across the country are having difficulty procuring sufficient ammo for training purposes. See http://www.naturalnews.com/038632_am...ge_police.html

    Thanks to outrageous Sandy Hook fear mongering by the mainstream media and political operatives like Feinstein, Obama, Cuomo and others, the American people have been rushing out to buy up every bullet, every rifle, every handgun and very nearly every gun-related product in the country. This is all because people like Biden, Obama and Feinstein are openly declaring war on the Second Amendment and threatening to outlaw or restrict firearms, magazines and ammunition.
    Last edited by 44Brent; 01-11-2013 at 07:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I called up my state Senator and both my Reps and let them know I expect them to oppose this.

    I suggest all of you do the same:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •