Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Washington State lawmakers to seek ban on military-style weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons

    In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

    By Molly Rosbach

    Seattle Times staff reporter

    In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

    The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

    The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

    It is named for Aaron Sullivan, 18, who was fatally shot last July in Seattle's Leschi neighborhood, allegedly with an assault-style weapon.

    Supporters say they also are motivated by the Oct. 31 slaying of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton and the wounding of his partner. Police believe a .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle was used then.

    The bill is backed by Seattle's police department, spokeswoman Renee Witt said. Also pushing it is Washington Ceasefire, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce gun violence. The group plans a news conference today to announce the proposal.

    The lawmakers who plan to sponsor the bill are Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle.

    The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

    Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

    "I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

    He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.

    advertising

    Hunter knows getting the bill through the Legislature would be difficult, because of concerns about limits on gun ownership. However, he thinks the ban is necessary.

    "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said.

    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.

    "What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," she said.

    She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

    "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.
    Local News | State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons | Seattle Times Newspaper

    Contact Rep. Hunter:
    District office:
    1611 116th Ave NE
    Suite 206
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    (425) 453-3064

    Olympia office:
    PO Box 40600
    330 John L. O'Brien Bldg.
    Olympia, WA 98504-0600
    (360) 786-7936

    Toll-free Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
    TTY (hearing impaired): 1-800-635-9993
    hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov

    -----------------------------------------------

    Contacting Sen. Adam Kline
    By Phone:
    Olympia Office: (360) 786-7688

    By E-Mail
    kline.adam@leg.wa.gov

    By Postal Mail
    Sen. Adam Kline
    PO Box 40437
    Olympia, WA 98504-0437

    -----------------------------------------------

    Contacting Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
    By Phone:
    Olympia Office: (360) 786-7670
    Seattle Office: (206) 281-6854
    Fax: (206) 216-3182

    By E-mail:
    kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov

    By Postal Mail
    Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
    PO Box 40436
    Olympia, WA 98504-0436

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    There are two major flaws in this article as it relates to the Second Amendment.

    "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said."


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


    First, the issue about "tanks or bazookas". When the Second Amendment was written, the term "arms" referred to weapons which could be carried on or about the person. Most people would classify these as small arms in general terms.

    The second is also frequently is raised by anti-gun people; that the Founders could not possibly have envisioned the weapons of today. What they did envision and what the intent of the Second Amendment is regarding this concept is that the people be armed with small arms which are compatible with those used by the military. M16's and their clones would be correct. The Swiss do this. If you doubt this was the meaning, check out United States v Miller.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about."

    Other than maybe some .50 BMG precision rifles, does the army use anything that is not a selective fire weapon?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    M-40/M-24

  5. #5
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    If you folks in Washington state want to have the greatest impact on your legislature to oppose this genocide promoting gun ban bill, the best thing you can do IMHO, is to buy a copy of "Innocents Betrayed" from Jews for the Protection of the Second Amendment, and mail it to your legislator, asking him/her to oppose the bill for the reasons outlined in the DVD. This "use of guns only for hunting purposes" garbage is in complete conflict with the 2nd amendment, and is ludicrous.

    This video effectively makes anti-gun arguments entirely irrelevant. The survival of humanity depends on the ability to defend itself from foreign or domestic state sanctioned genocide. The history of this genocide and the need to prevent it, is irrefutable, even with liberals. Politicians are mistaken in their beliefs that they are in control, and that "it can't happen here". The truth is, it already has happened with the gun ownership rights of freed slaves.

    Also send a copy to the perhaps well intentioned, but misinformed individuals proposing the bill.

    I have no financial ties to JFPO.

    Note the discounts on multiple copies purchased. This is ideal if you want to send a copy to every state legislator in your state.

    http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

    New Discount Offer! - JPFO offers a special rate for purchases of 6 or 12 copies of the ''Innocents Betrayed'' DVD or VHS.

    You may now opt to purchase 6 copies for $72 (equating to $12 per copy), or 12 copies for $120 (equating to just $10 per copy), shipping is included within the U.S.A. Note - an order for a set counts as ONE item.


  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    When More Guns, Less Crime was first released in paperback, GRGRSC sent a copy to each of its legislators.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    When More Guns, Less Crime was first released in paperback, GRGRSC sent a copy to each of its legislators.
    It's much easier to get someone to watch a DVD, than to read a book these days. I guess they both reach different audiences. I just keep reminding OCDO folks here about the power behind "Innocents Betrayed". After watching it, it solidified my position on being a gun rights advocate. Anyone that watches it, IMHO, will be hard pressed not to become a gun rights advocate themselves.

    http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.
    So since the military has, and continues to use pump-action and semi-auto 12GA shotguns, I suppose these would be on "The List" too if these clowns had their way

    I wonder what this group would say about an AR variant that has been dipped in Mossy Oak camouflage film. It makes a great varmint rifle, and the .223 projectile does a great job on deer-sized animals. I consider a semi-auto AR variant an excellent sporting rifle suitable for several disciplines of shooting sports. How about the Ruger 10/22, isn't that what the US biathalon team uses for competition?

    And then we come to the part that these morons never ever consider, Criminals will own weapons that have been banned no matter what the law states. This does absolutely nothing to disarm the criminals that would use these weapons as an offensive tool, but does everything to disarm the law abiding citizen. It would guarantee that criminals have the advantage in every situation.

    Morons, Complete morons! Time to unseat these idiots from their position during the next election

  9. #9
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I would not engage these people on what constitutes a hunting rifle versus military rifle. If you do, you risk affirming their "hunting rights only" argument as legitimate. Once they have that, they will move to ban hunting. I believe the argument should be based on the original premise and intent behind the 2nd amendment.

    This puts the opposing and supporting sides in the correct political categories. The minute we adopt "their" arguments on classifying what constitutes appropriate gun ownership, is the minute we lose our gun rights, Canadian style.


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons
    Oh my, that is just dumb legislation!

    In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
    In place of non-military style semi-automatic weapons? DUMB! People of Washington, don't let it happen! Even beyond the argument that it can set a precedence to limit other rights, it's just plain dumb!

    The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
    And how do they plan on doing background checks on people that already have the rifles? Does WA already have a list of "assault weapon" owners on file somewhere? Foolishness either way.

    The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
    And how are they going to make that determination exactly?

    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.
    That goes with my question above! That is plain WRONG! That would eliminate a whole bunch of guns, even if you just look at the United States Military. They use bolt actoin rifles firing the same ammunition forcombat as hunters use. So if the supporters of this state bill do this right, people may not be able to purchase hunting rifles! No more .338 Lapua fun at 1800 yards. How are they going to setup the exceptions to the rules. This is just plain dumb.

    Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

    "I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

    He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.
    GO DAVE WORKMAN!

    "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction,"
    Absolutely not true. There are private owners of weapons of mass destruction, you just have to go through the proper channels and tax stamps to acquire some of them, tanks aren't even that hard to get if you've got the money for them. Ignorance is afoot.

    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
    Oh, well worded, Rep. Kohl-Welles, well worded. "No, we won't take your weapons from you, that is if you satisfy our background checks. For the rest of you punks, we're taking away your right to own the weapons by preemptive strike." Twisted words that misguide and mislead. Poppycock!

    She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
    It is a blatant violation and shows disrespect and disregard for the United States Constitution. You are preventing the right to bear arms through preemption.

    "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.
    That line needs to be replayed over and over for this fool. Semi-automatic weapons, during the framing of our Constitution? Did they envision automobiles, cell phones, and televisions? They didn't bloody exist! This is why they said, FIREARMS! It is all encompassing, if you want to debate that a firearm means non-military style guns, then bring it on. I love to see a good debate-ass-wupping to someone that deserves it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons
    Oh my, that is just dumb legislation!

    In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
    In place of non-military style semi-automatic weapons? DUMB! People of Washington, don't let it happen! Even beyond the argument that it can set a precedence to limit other rights, it's just plain dumb!

    The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
    And how do they plan on doing background checks on people that already have the rifles? Does WA already have a list of "assault weapon" owners on file somewhere? Foolishness either way.

    The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
    And how are they going to make that determination exactly?

    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.
    That goes with my question above! That is plain WRONG! That would eliminate a whole bunch of guns, even if you just look at the United States Military. They use bolt actoin rifles firing the same ammunition forcombat as hunters use. So if the supporters of this state bill do this right, people may not be able to purchase hunting rifles! No more .338 Lapua fun at 1800 yards. How are they going to setup the exceptions to the rules. This is just plain dumb.

    Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

    "I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

    He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.
    GO DAVE WORKMAN!

    "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction,"
    Absolutely not true. There are private owners of weapons of mass destruction, you just have to go through the proper channels and tax stamps to acquire some of them, tanks aren't even that hard to get if you've got the money for them. Ignorance is afoot.

    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
    Oh, well worded, Rep. Kohl-Welles, well worded. "No, we won't take your weapons from you, that is if you satisfy our background checks. For the rest of you punks, we're taking away your right to own the weapons by preemptive strike." Twisted words that misguide and mislead. Poppycock!

    She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
    It is a blatant violation and shows disrespect and disregard for the United States Constitution. You are preventing the right to bear arms through preemption.

    "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.
    That line needs to be replayed over and over for this fool. Semi-automatic weapons, during the framing of our Constitution? Did they envision automobiles, cell phones, and televisions? They didn't bloody exist! This is why they said, FIREARMS! It is all encompassing, if you want to debate that a firearm means non-military style guns, then bring it on. I love to see a good debate-ass-wupping to someone that deserves it.
    What he said ^!
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Wow, the anti's are in full swing here in WA. I was living in a fantasy thinking that this wouldn't happen.

  13. #13
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Knee jerk stupidity that will do no good... sounds like typical political crap!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  14. #14
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners
    As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.


    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners
    As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.

    Part of their meeting this morning was suggesting that if the ban was put into effect, more background checks would be done on current "aussault weapons" owners and that "home inspections" would be performed to make sure people are lockup up their guns "correctly." That is, if the anti's had their way.

    Scary thoughts.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    kito109654 wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners
    As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.

    *
    Part of their meeting this morning was suggesting that if the ban was put into effect, more background checks would be done on current "aussault weapons" owners and that "home inspections" would be performed to make sure people are lockup up their guns "correctly."* That is, if the anti's had their way.

    Scary thoughts.*
    That is absolutely no good. Do any other states do home inspections like this? I can see them doing this in some places where people may have children, for guns in general (I don't agree with that if it does happen) and I know the BATFE has some authority to inspect FFL holders (collectors, dealers, manufacturers, etc) but that is with some limitation I do believe.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    There are two major flaws in this article as it relates to the Second Amendment.

    "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said."


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


    First, the issue about "tanks or bazookas". When the Second Amendment was written, the term "arms" referred to weapons which could be carried on or about the person. Most people would classify these as small arms in general terms.

    The second is also frequently is raised by anti-gun people; that the Founders could not possibly have envisioned the weapons of today. What they did envision and what the intent of the Second Amendment is regarding this concept is that the people be armed with small arms which are compatible with those used by the military. M16's and their clones would be correct. The Swiss do this. If you doubt this was the meaning, check out United States v Miller.
    It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

    Why is this over looked?


    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

    Why is this over looked?

    Because some jackasses either down right hate the 2nd Amendment and some people want to debate the meaning of commas when it should be clear that the meaning should be obvious.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    VA Lawyer wrote:
    "If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about."

    Other than maybe some .50 BMG precision rifles, does the army use anything that is not a selective fire weapon?
    I hate to cause panic, but I know the 1911 colt 45 is a military used sidearm.
    The question is can the state prove it was ever used in war.

    Our forefathers wanted the people to be able to stop tyrants who abuse their
    power in office. How is a slingshot to be used to stop a tank?
    No, our forefathers wanted the citizens to have access to the same weapons
    as the government so they could not be oppressed by them.

    I could live with the legislation as being told by the lying SOB's. As we haven't had
    a war since 1945, any weapon made since could never have been used in a war so
    would be exempt. But since they are lying, and want to ban everything.......

    Can a state override the federal gov? I pay the feds for my machine gun, can the
    state then make owning it a crime? I though conflicting laws put feds first.

    President Obama tells the rusians that it is just a defensive missle nothing
    to fear. Yet put one in your yard, and the feds will swoop in before the cement
    dries and cart you away. I am not bothered about my neighbor having a bazooka,
    if he is a nut case I can outdraw one in a heart beat, if he is responsible person
    I am greatful for the help repelling Janet Reno like AG when they show up to
    slaughter my family. Either way by knowing your nieghbor you have increased
    your safety. It is the government who will use those weapons against us that I fear.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

    Why is this over looked?

    That is a very good point, I hadn't thought of that.

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    The problem with our "system" is that the grabbers (and every other special interest group looking for "progress"ive laws) continue to play the same cards over and over until, after being told so many times, seem to be the truth to a sufficient number of sheep that they win a tiny legal hold somewhere abotu some thing. Then they work on that.

    This can be seen over and over. Two excellent examples are smoking bans and DUI levels. When they first started, the anti-smoking special interst groups had zero chance of getting what they wanted..... a total ban on smoking anywhere they might be..... so they started with baby steps and "non smoking sections" on airplanes where they argued they were cooped up and involuntarilly being exposed to hazardous smoke (which, to date, has not been scientifically shown to cause any harm to anyone other than those who are allergic to it). If you doubt this, I have the scientific evidence (which happens to be the same evidence they use to justify their "hazardous" headlines). Today we find ourselves well along the slippery slope towards the ultimate goal of the anti-smokers, banning of tobacco, with prohibitions on using the stuff on private property. But they won't get to a total banuntil such time as the government no longer makes sufficient profits from their taxes on tobacco. The government, in fact, makes more "profit" from tobacco than ALL the other players in the chain of production and distribution COMBINED.

    With the DUI issue, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) goal is a 0.00 threshold for DUI. one little blip of alcohol and you're DUI. Yet they, just as the anti-smoking groups, knew from the start that 0.00 wouldn't fly. So they fought for 0.10 and when they got that almost universally though the country they began going for 0.08 then 0.04 for commercial drivers. Now we hear of sporadic arguments to reduce the level to 0.05 and 0.01 for commercial drivers. Again, the slippery slope is working to their advantage with one tiny victory being worked, repeatedly, until the next slip down the slope is complete.

    Now, I don't advocate drunk driving but 0.08 is more than sufficient when one considers that the driver at 0.08 is almost certainly more capable of driving safely than the "protected" 85 year old that gets his license renewal through the mail and hasn't seen the inside of a DMV office in 10 or 20 years..... or perhaps he did but no one dared question him. My own father in law, at 87, was in this position and WE had to take in upon ourselves to remove his license from him to prevent his driving because DMV just gave him a new one. My wifes aunt is the same. At age 84 she got her renewal notice in the mail and just sent in the check. Yet she'd run over a sidewalk and several large landscapign rocks just a couple of months prior and didn't even know it!

    DO NOT allow any compromise on the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS. The 2nd has no limitation on what those arms are. Nor does it authorize government to require the PEOPLE to obtain permission to exercise their RIGHTS. This is the reason you'll probably never see a dime of my money go to the NRA who are too ready to compromise for fear of losing if they stand by their principles. (I say probably because they may, some day, see the error of their ways).

    Cases such as this one in Washington are exactly why OCDO is alive and well, growing substantially, and more and more of THE PEOPLE are standing up and demanding their RIGHT to keep and bear arms. While CC is great, only OC makes a political statement and makes visible the number of armed and lawful citizens who must be considered by both the criminal element and the politicians (not that there is much difference these days!).

    WE THE PEOPLE
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    Excellant post WTP.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Thos.Jefferson wrote:
    Excellant post WTP.
    I try. Sometimes I ramble though. A hazard of having taken two years of typing in high school (back when the top of the line was an IBM selectric). I managed 27 wpm after those two years, partially because of the distraction of being in a 60 student class and being only one of six male students the first year and the ONLY male student the second year. The birth of computer keyboards freed me from those archaic machines somewhat but those first machines couldn't keep up and I found myself listening to the beep beep beeps of a full "buffer" and having to stop and wait for the computer to catch up.

    I haven't had that problem since the advent of the pentium processors though. LOL

    There is a saying that "the pen is mightier than the sword". Well, I have to tell you, typing is a very useful tool. One I used on many occasions during my time in the Corps to "make things happen". After having had more officers (college edumacated)than I can remember bring me (the hick town high school grad) their correspondence, usually handwritten and quite gramatically suffering, to "fix", I found myself with quite a disdain for "higher education".

    Yet here I am, in my forties (barely), and a freshman in college. OH JOY. LOL

    So if you find me rambling around here, just remember, I type about 100 wpm from my thoughts to the screen and feel free to "skim".

    WE THE PEOPLE
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    As Mr. Hunter said, getting this law through the legislature will be difficult. Quite the understatement considering the election year.

    Also, Heller protects commonly used weapons.

  25. #25
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    So, they would want my .30 cal carbine? My DPMS? My M14? How about the SKS? It wasn't used by the American Military ... but it does shoot the 7.62 Nato round which is/was an American Military round.

    And, yup, it sounds like there goes all our 1911 .45's ... and isn't the Army using 9mm now?

    And my 12 ga. pumps? What's next, any calibur that a police force uses/d?

    Good luck to those who live in Washington ... sounds like you have a fight on your hands.

    Hold the line and stand your ground for all the rest of us.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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