• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lawmakers to seek ban on military-style weapons

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:
Tawnos wrote:
FunkTrooper wrote:
Look if they are using a picture with our mocking written into then let them. "Black color scheme makes the bullets more deadly" let them believe that and we'll find out if our education system has worked out as bad as California's.
That image was put up by someone who opposes the ban. Read the quote below it: "Note: Nothing in this image is to be taken seriously or as fact." Read the comments: http://www.facebook.com/AaronSullivanAssaultWeaponsBan#/photo.php?pid=287314&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=127113938021&id=1655186248

It was MOCKING HUMOR, they weren't using the picture, someone who opposes them was.
Yes I know Tawnos, I think it's pretty ironic.
Above "if they are using a picture"... I was pointing out they weren't using the picture, "we" were.
 

Commodore76

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Curtis, Washington, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
FunkTrooper wrote:
Look if they are using a picture with our mocking written into then let them. "Black color scheme makes the bullets more deadly" let them believe that and we'll find out if our education system has worked out as bad as California's.
That image was put up by someone who opposes the ban. Read the quote below it: "Note: Nothing in this image is to be taken seriously or as fact." Read the comments: http://www.facebook.com/AaronSullivanAssaultWeaponsBan#/photo.php?pid=287314&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=127113938021&id=1655186248

It was MOCKING HUMOR, they weren't using the picture, someone who opposes them was.

"Nothing in the pic is to be taken as fact..." Hmmm, think they might have put that comment there as sort of a disclaimer? Just to keep folks who are pro gun from coming pointing out how stupid they are?

Seriously, think about it. If a pro gun person were to point out the pic, the person that posted the pic has a pretty easy out after having said that it was a joke.

Sorry, the person who owns that page is very anti and that pic is a form of anti-gun humor. Being as pro-gun folks have had to put up with a LOT of misinformation, irresponsible fiction regarding gun crimes and an absolute disregard for our individual rights, even little jokes or attempts at satire as you put it, are not really all that damn funny, are they?

To me, gun control should no more be a debate than what kind of vehicle you can own. Period!

Thanks for your take on the humorous aspect of this picture. I see the people that are reading it getting more silly misconceptions about guns and any of the humor value is lost to me.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
imported post

Commodore76 wrote:
To me, gun control should no more be a debate than what kind of vehicle you can own. Period!
Poor choice of metaphor. More people have died & families been destroyed as a result of the ol' Ford vs Chevy debate than from gun violence.

























:p
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Commodore76 wrote:
Tawnos wrote:
FunkTrooper wrote:
Look if they are using a picture with our mocking written into then let them. "Black color scheme makes the bullets more deadly" let them believe that and we'll find out if our education system has worked out as bad as California's.
That image was put up by someone who opposes the ban. Read the quote below it: "Note: Nothing in this image is to be taken seriously or as fact." Read the comments: http://www.facebook.com/AaronSullivanAssaultWeaponsBan#/photo.php?pid=287314&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=127113938021&id=1655186248

It was MOCKING HUMOR, they weren't using the picture, someone who opposes them was.

"Nothing in the pic is to be taken as fact..." Hmmm, think they might have put that comment there as sort of a disclaimer? Just to keep folks who are pro gun from coming pointing out how stupid they are?

Seriously, think about it. If a pro gun person were to point out the pic, the person that posted the pic has a pretty easy out after having said that it was a joke.

Sorry, the person who owns that page is very anti and that pic is a form of anti-gun humor. Being as pro-gun folks have had to put up with a LOT of misinformation, irresponsible fiction regarding gun crimes and an absolute disregard for our individual rights, even little jokes or attempts at satire as you put it, are not really all that damn funny, are they?

To me, gun control should no more be a debate than what kind of vehicle you can own. Period!

Thanks for your take on the humorous aspect of this picture. I see the people that are reading it getting more silly misconceptions about guns and any of the humor value is lost to me.
You're being very dense. A number of "us", those who oppose such a ban, have joined the page and tried to post corrective information. The person who owns the group has nothing to do with the person who posted the picture. The picture is intended to point out a ton of common misconceptions and falsehoods people associate with guns; the use of quotes around "clip" and "bullet" is a dead giveaway, as is the "this part is scary even if I don't know what it does."

If someone reads that and gets more misconceptions about guns, they're idiots, plain and simple, too dumb to recognize the mocking derision aimed at them.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

Commodore76 wrote:
I wonder, if the Gov did start to alter the State Constitution, how many good little children would do as they are told and turn in their WMD's.

How many times will law abiding citizens draw lines in the sand, just to have Gov hop right over it, smiling the whole time?

Sites like this help spread the word. What's the point of spreading the word? Is it to keep people informed? If so, to what end? So we can get more and more pissed off as we sit here, drinking our morning coffee?

To all of you who daily take a stand and assert your Constitutional RIGHTS and do your best to positively educate others, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

For those of you who feel very strongly that we don't need to have more gun laws on the books, but don't yet feel like making waves, maybe it's time to make those feelings a bit more evident.

The battle for gun control is revolutionary. It keeps coming back around every so often and, in doing so, we loose a little ground each time it happens. When are we going to stop being the loosers?

I know that gun owners might be the minority in this State, but seriously, how can one with a gun be controlled by one without?

I really hate the SOB I'm going to quote here, but it is applicable to the previous sentence. "One man with a gun can control one HUNDRED men without" ~Lenin (May he burn in hell)

I know this sounds like a frustrated rant. It is. I just don't seem to be able to wrap my mind around always being on the loosing side of this war on our rights.
Amen to your rant good sir, amen.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
 

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

Of course, it's nauseating that the usual libtarded suspects come out of the woodwork to shamelessly exploit every possible opportunity to advance their "warm embrace of government" agenda.

My initial reaction to this though is that, however scary and irritating it is, I don't think it has a good chance of passing. Is there any real evidence that outside of a few of the usual pockets, this would have allies?

The scariest thing to come out of this so far is the revelation of the true agenda of these people -- police entering our homes under the guise of "inspecting" our firearms. I can hardly think of anything relating to government that is more revolting that this -- something like that could conceivably cause armed rebellion.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
I totally don't get it, seems to work better for them. Care to explain?


tai4de2 wrote:
Of course, it's nauseating that the usual libtarded suspects come out of the woodwork to shamelessly exploit every possible opportunity to advance their "warm embrace of government" agenda.

My initial reaction to this though is that, however scary and irritating it is, I don't think it has a good chance of passing. Is there any real evidence that outside of a few of the usual pockets, this would have allies?

The scariest thing to come out of this so far is the revelation of the true agenda of these people -- police entering our homes under the guise of "inspecting" our firearms. I can hardly think of anything relating to government that is more revolting that this -- something like that could conceivably cause armed rebellion.
I feel the same way, I don't see it passing, I don't see enough allies for it. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing what we can to protest. Especially after their agenda you mentioned coming into the light of day and exposed for what it really is, an outrage.
 

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
I'm not sure I get the analogy, or more exactly, the analogy seems to buttress their point, not ours.

They didn't envision internet child porn; that is not now a protected form of expression; and (I hope) we all agree it shouldn't be protected under the 1A.

The analogy with guns would be that they didn't envision semi-automatic weapons so we can carve out an exception to the 2A for some class of firearms.

I'm probably missing something.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

This may be the only time I am thankful for the referendum process. If this manages to pass, and that is a pretty big if, we need to be ready to go with the referendum a nanosecond after the governor signs it. I would fully expect her to delay signing the same way she did with the gay marriage referendum - - shortened up the time to act considerably.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

tai4de2 wrote:
Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
I'm not sure I get the analogy, or more exactly, the analogy seems to buttress their point, not ours.

They didn't envision internet child porn; that is not now a protected form of expression; and (I hope) we all agree it shouldn't be protected under the 1A.

The analogy with guns would be that they didn't envision semi-automatic weapons so we can carve out an exception to the 2A for some class of firearms.

I'm probably missing something.
Most who would deny us our 2A protected rights will scream bloody murder (so to speak) if you try to place any restrictions on "speech" of any kind. Practically every one I have encountered doesn't think possessing child pornography should be a crime, hence my rather extreme example (I will modify it upon reflection on your reply). Slightly OT, and not trying to start anything, they also tend to be overwhelmingly "pro-choice", unless that choice involves choosing to defend onesself with the best tools available.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
tai4de2 wrote:
Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
I'm not sure I get the analogy, or more exactly, the analogy seems to buttress their point, not ours.

They didn't envision internet child porn; that is not now a protected form of expression; and (I hope) we all agree it shouldn't be protected under the 1A.

The analogy with guns would be that they didn't envision semi-automatic weapons so we can carve out an exception to the 2A for some class of firearms.

I'm probably missing something.
Most who would deny us our 2A protected rights will scream bloody murder (so to speak) if you try to place any restrictions on "speech" of any kind. Practically every one I have encountered doesn't think possessing child pornography should be a crime, hence my rather extreme example (I will modify it upon reflection on your reply). Slightly OT, and not trying to start anything, they also tend to be overwhelmingly "pro-choice", unless that choice involves choosing to defend onesself with the best tools available.
I'd say you're wrong. I respectfully suggest you find a new analogy, one that would be widely accepted. Otherwise it's useless, no?
 

0V3RC10CK3D

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
That is a horrible metaphor. Their response would be "Exactly!, which is why we can ban child pornography and semi-automatic weapons! Because neither could be envisioned."

...Whose side are you on?
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
That is a horrible metaphor. Their response would be "Exactly!, which is why we can ban child pornography and semi-automatic weapons! Because neither could be envisioned."

...Whose side are you on?
I think he means well; he's just a little off base.
 

Commodore76

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Curtis, Washington, USA
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Lammo wrote:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

My answer this is "When they wrote the First Amendment did they envision internet child pornography?" Usually shuts them up, at least on that argument.
That is a horrible metaphor. Their response would be "Exactly!, which is why we can ban child pornography and semi-automatic weapons! Because neither could be envisioned."

...Whose side are you on?
I think he means well; he's just a little off base.

I think he might have left the word "child" out of the comment and then made the 1st Amendment caseabout Mr. Flynt. Not that I'm adocating anything in particular... Just my thoughts.

To me, if you want to call yourself a good American, you just need to respect rights granted us by a higher power and stop trying to play a higher power by limiting freedom.:banghead:

Respect my right to blow lots of holes in paper, drink white chocolate mochas,take a leak off my porchand I'll respect your right to live.

Sounds easy, right? :cool:
 
Top