In Seattle Democrats' latest assault on the Constitution, several state legislators are attempting to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and force current owners to submit to background checks.
Why? Because "there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state." Why? Because, according to Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire, "These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."
All types of guns are weapons of war. All guns can kill. And no, these guns cannot shoot 200 bullets a minute, not with accuracy, and not at a sustained rate before they break down.
(I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns. You'd think being informed would be a prerequisite for a position like that.)
So really, why? Rep. Ross Hunter and Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are proposing to ban semi-automatics "designed for military use" (which would be determined, no doubt, by subjecting the gun designers to Vulcan mind melds) that are "capable of rapid fire" (which is likely a synonym for either "automatic," or "semi-automatic") and "can hold more than 10 rounds," motivated in part by the slaying in October of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton, with a .223 semi-automatic rifle.
The "10 rounds" thing is a dumb ploy: it's meant simply to exclude hunting rifles, which are ballistically equivalent to "military" rifles (the .223 round that killed Brenton is used for hunting, and "military" rifles don't shoot the round differently, of course). And the difference in number of rounds isn't significant: no one can point to shooting incidents where the shooter used more than a few rounds, or didn't have time to swap magazines. They include this simply because they know they will lose the bill if hunters oppose it.
Of course, Brenton could have been killed with a rifle not covered under this ban: witnesses heard eight to 10 shots. But facts don't matter when people are dying!
Now, the text of the bill isn't up, but this would probably ban the sale of some hunting rifles, and certainly would ban the sale most semi-automatic handguns, because most of them can accept clips of more than 10 rounds, and were designed with military use in mind (for example, the classic 1911 was designed explicitly for use in war, and you could easily make the argument that all semi-automatic weapons were designed for military use, given that they all use concepts designed for military weapons).
My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.
While the first repeating rifle as we know it today didn't come along for 100 years, it was not for lack of trying: the problems of reloading quickly were well-considered by The Framers, and many people of the time wondered what it would take to be able to just pull the trigger multiple times without having to reload. (Indeed, in 1780, Bartolomeo Girandoni developed his first repeater, an air rifle.) And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if they could have had such practical weapons, they would have loved for the citizens to have them, that they might be used against the British.
Maybe Kohl-Welles and her colleagues can join Fascitelli in taking a gun education class.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at December 22, 2009 08:35 AM | Email ThisAnd 200 rounds a minute? That's much too fast - I can only reload about 200 in an hour, so I like to keep my firing rate a bit lower, if possible. No fun spending 5 hours reloading for a 30 minute firing range trip!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:54 AMAfter all, why should the private citizens possess such modern, relatively fast and accurate (compared to previous generations) weapons? Nothing good could come from it, could it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:59 AM-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
So the framers wanted the ultimate level of balance against runaway government yet modern lawmakers think they had no intention for citizens to own military style arms? Let's see, they had just won the ability to assign the right to bear arms to citizens by defeating a tyrannical government with privately held arms but then forgot how they won their freedom and wanted the populace to become incapable of defending against tyranny in the future? Right.
Posted by: Cecil on December 22, 2009 10:27 AMOwning tanks isn't illegal, I've had several and still have one now.
Posted by: Dik on December 22, 2009 12:00 PMOwning tanks isn't illegal, I've had several and still have one now.
Posted by: Dik on December 22, 2009 12:00 PMHow can people be so stupid?
Posted by: Sam Adams on December 22, 2009 01:17 PMClues:
1. Where do most gun sales take place? --- "Red" states and more generally amongst folks who vote "R" (or call themselves "C").
2. Which states have a lot of folks under the poverty line --- folks who depend on dollars from the innovation and hard work of blue states? Why the aformentioned red states of course.
3. Which states have a lot folks going to church? Again the poor, red staters.
4. If you are college-educated you are likley to vote "D" and not have a gun.
5. If you make more than $100k (you probably have a college degree) you are likely to vote "D" and not have a gun.
With these 5 clues even you guys can put it togheter...since many of you live in educated states like WA and CA.
So ban welfare money and church handouts being used to buy guns and what do u have.... gun sales will plummet.
Get it?
Posted by: Flamer not "flsmer" on December 22, 2009 01:22 PMTake a typical R or C --- looks down on "illegal immigrants" and mexicans in general. All kinds of reasons apparently --from upholding the law to beign against welfare to not speaking english. Ever notice that the only reason that an R or C is not against these chaps is because of their darker skin. Other than reason that they are against them for all other reasons...but no, not skin color god forbid.
Anyway, I digress.
My larger point is that the way most Rs/Cs feel about "illegal immigrants" is how many of us feel about a lot of Rs/Cs. To be pitied and given charity or employment...it took 30-40 years for the typical R/C to give up their open racial agenda and it will take another 40-50 years for them to become productive, educated US citizens.
Till then they deserve our pity...afterall, it is the season of peace and joy!
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 01:32 PMEverybody is a racist in one way or another, even your precious illegal immigrants are racists themselves. Mexicans, for example, aren't very keen on their neighbors to the South. In fact, they're racist towards the people whose bloodlines are those of the indigenous peoples of Central America.
La Raza, a Latino political group, is extremeley racist against whites and onther non-Latinos. You don't have to go very far to find racism in those groups either.
Have you ever noticed that there's a pecking order of Asians? Japanese view themselves as being at the top. The Chinese, Korean, Vietanmese and others hate the Japanese with a passion. They also hate others of difference Asian racial groups.
We're all tribal, and tribalism has a byproduct called racism. The best we can do is to not let it get out of hand, but to pretend that only white people of a particular political persuasion are racist and other groups aren't is a simplistic comment and shows a lack of worldliness on your part.
Happy Yule!
Wow! Funnily enough I agree with everything you said. While you are at it drag in Africa too.
But so what? My original comments still stand.
Peace!
Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 02:21 PMyeah, yeah the current R party has nothing in common with the party of 1800s.
Sure, sure we all know who Byrd is. And yes we know the history of the D party. And yes why didn't you mention what the voting percentages on Civil Rigts were...it would help the point you claim to be making. But that vote for example is subject to Simpson's paradox --- a mathematical concept I will let you google (BTW product of a proud left wing company). And yes the parties have pretty much flipped on the other points.
I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...
Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 02:29 PMFlsmer is a textbook example of what happens when you are "educated" in the government run madrassas. Factless invective as truth, abject stupidity as informed opinion mixed with clueless pot calling. 'sall good.
Hey Flsmer, that second run on the church money/gun thing is a real piss cutter. And it still doesn't make sense (well, to you maybe but . . . ).
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 22, 2009 02:29 PMYou never actually showed any such sales exist. You're just making it up. You have no relevant claims backed by reality.
Take a typical R or C --- looks down on ... mexicans in general.
You're a liar.
My larger point is that the way most Rs/Cs feel about "illegal immigrants" is how many of us feel about a lot of Rs/Cs.
How you feel has nothing to do with anything. People have rights, and you have no right to take those rights away.
In fact, it is Republicans who have been standing up lately for the rights of non-citizens to possess guns in this state. The Democrats are the ones who have tried to take the rights of non-citizens -- largely Mexicans -- away by defunding the non-citizen gun permitting process.
the typical R/C ... their open racial agenda
You're a liar.
and it will take another 40-50 years for them to become productive, educated US citizens.
I'm more productive and educated than you are. Shrug.
Politically Incorrect: Everybody is a racist in one way or another
False. I'm not, and many people I know are not.
Now then, any future posts about race -- unless it is specifically in the context of gun rights -- will be removed. Topic, please.
And if Flsmer repeats any of his lies without reasonably backing them up, he will be banned.
In this way I can have a Merry Christmas.
Why yes they did and that's the principle reason they favored posterity with our precious second amendment.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on December 22, 2009 02:30 PMFunny!
yes i stand by my statements. They were broad generalizations, also defined as true 50+% of the time.
As I said....
I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...
In Other Words, "my mind is made up, don't cloud the issue with facts". Besides, he knows that progressives need to distract people from their other areas of incompetency.
Nice to know that the Democrats are still foresquare in their ignorance of the law, the constitution and common sense; and are wlling to violate them "for the people"; all the while lieing. They lie either because they don't know the facts, or don't want to let the facts get in the way of their nifty ideas.
Property rights, national security, civil liberty ... actually we have pretty much the same platform as they did. (But -- again -- I am the educated one here.)
the parties have pretty much flipped on the other points
False. Again, the GOP hasn't flipped on anything mentioned here. The GOP is, and has always been, a virulently pro-civil-rights party. There have been a few anomalies over the years, but those are obviously (well, to us educated folk) the exceptions.
I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...
Success at being a liar? ... you're proud of that?
I do agree it was off topic but not a lie.
False.
feel free to do the ban thing.
Done.
G Jiggy: he's said what he has to say. No need to let him continue to pollute the discussion.
Once again, Liberals know that all you have to do to stop gun crime is out of a sign banning it.
Posted by: TTTCOTTH on December 22, 2009 03:38 PMThe right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Based upon the collective wisdom and insight of self-defense experts, I deem the best way to defend myself is with semi-automatic high capacity pistols and rifles. The State cannot impair that right to self-defense, per the Washington Constitution.
My guess is that she glosses over this part... Doesn't surprise this college educated, 6 figure earning, blue-State-living, church going firearm owner!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 03:57 PMThis college graduated independent would rather dive head first into a pool of hydrochloric acid then vote for most D's in the legislature, and certainly none of the scum in the US Senate who sold us out on health Care socialization without a peep from the fringe-leftists infesting us here.
The clowns sponsoring this assault on our rights would be the first to beg me to pull my automatic (which looks very military, since it's a colt combat commander) and end any threat those less inclined to follow their fringe left views might be aiming at their kids or themselves.
Gotta wonder. We're in one of those VT classrooms, and you can hear the shots coming closer.
If I'm a student there, and I've broken the rules and brought my .45 on campus... and I used it to take that punk out, is it even money that the Kohl-Welles of the world would condemn me for breaking the rules, even though that decision saved lives?
And how much respect did the VT killer show for the anti-gun rules of that campus?
The same respect any criminal would show for this violation of my rights.
Those supporting this the hardest would be among those whining the loudest as they collapsed in their whining little liberal puddles, crying "save us, save us," to any one of us college educated, non-impoverished non-democrat veteran types with concealed weapons permits who would use said weapons to save their sorry asses.
Posted by: Hinton on December 22, 2009 04:21 PMand what does that have to do with anything, other than pointing out the obvious?
ahh. it's so much nicer living in a blue state.
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 04:31 PMI could not care less.
I disagree totally with Flamer but shan't speak against him/her now that I know he/she has been handicapped
Flamer was mentally handicapped before pudge banned him...;)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 04:33 PMUm, it was in direct response to another commenter. Try reading, it works!
but the commenter never stated that everyone who inflates their net worth online to over $100k always votes D.
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 04:44 PMMy RGR has been down recently and could use some good pub.
Pay heed to pudge and get your Christmas, Boxing Day, New Years gift before your rights are taken away!
And they'll take away your right to buy the scary looking ones first. Don't wait til next year!
Thanks!
Anyone with even a passing understanding of firearms knows that one or two shots from nearly any gun can be fatal.
I have a 9-round little double-action 22 revolver that I can "rapid fire" . I can probably squeeze off all 9-shots in less than 20 seconds.
All guns are dangerous.
The sane questions is: are we going to start locking up the creeps that use guns to menace law abiding citizens? Whatever happened to the "Three Strikes You're Out" law we passed. No, liberals let violent criminals out onto the street continually. Convicted child rapists live in virtually every neighborhood. You can look it up. Murderers get maybe five years. It's insanity. What do liberals always want to do? Remove our protection from the criminals they routinely release who have no business in decent society.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 05:14 PMYes, and no one ever implied he did. But if he is going to make dumb generalizations, it's reasonable to point out when they don't apply ... unless he is going to actually back up his generalizations with facts, AND link them with MORE facts to the topic at hand.
MikeBS: I have three Rugers. Good guns.
are you trying to win anaward for most retarded statements on a blog?
racism doesn't have a liberal/conservative or believer/rationalist divide.
also, i think daniel might be too dumb to realize he's confusing racism with nationalism.
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 06:53 PMas someone who was brought up in a southern jewish/christian household - i experienced overt anti-semitism from a lot of southern evangelical types.
it's pretty easy to see why you get snubbed, though... you think faux noise is news, when it's actually overyhped, banal entertainment for the mindless masses.
Don't let the trolls steal the thread. Don't feed them. Keep on topic. And that means you too Pudge!
Posted by: deadwood on December 22, 2009 07:01 PMSomehow Government always assumes that people will always obey the new laws enacted to stop the breaking of old laws. Does Senator Kohl-Welles' proposal address the existing magazines and firearms in the State? And what about individuals legally purchasing such items in Idaho or Oregon - is the Senator proposing roadblocks to search vehicles bringing them back?
This is simply a case of "OMG we gotta do SOMETHING!" reactionary, grab-the-headlines, appeal-to-the-passivists Government activity intended to make some people feel better, solve nothing, and impede the rights of law-abiding citizens (rights guaranteed by the State and Federal constitutions, I might add).
The voters of the 36th should be ashamed of their Senator and vote her out...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 07:19 PMthanks for proving my point that conservatives CAN be racists.
douchebag.
also, pudge: did you intentionally fail to mention that the SPD backs the bill?
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 07:29 PM"This is simply a case of "OMG we gotta do SOMETHING!" reactionary, grab-the-headlines, appeal-to-the-passivists Government activity"
Your mostly right there Dan, but you needn't worry. In the extremely unlikely event politicians of any stripe did enact some sort of restriction, the ship has long since sailed on enforcing it.
In the mean time, please heed pudge and purchase as many semi-auto guns and 30 round clips as you can possibly afford before the year ends.
ps. A stainless magazine for the owner of a 9mm makes a great stocking stuffer!
Talk to Greg Nickels about that... Idiots seem to run rampant in the Seattle-based political circles.
I have plenty of 30 rounders for my 5.56mm rifle, and plenty of magazines for my pistols. However, I am considering a nice Saiga 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun and a few 20 shell drums.
And unlike pudge, I'm not a fan of Ruger; I consider them overpriced for what you get. I prefer my semi-autos from S&W (the Sigma series are a massive value) or from Kel-Tec (a great, Florida company). Revolvers from Taurus or S&W. The only Ruger I'd consider would be a 22/45 mk III, but it's pretty pricey compared to the Beretta NEOs and S&W 22A.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:00 PMpudge: did you intentionally fail to mention that the SPD backs the bill?
The same SPD that supported Nickels' illegal ban of guns in Seattle parks and community centers? Yeah, that shows a real sense of rights of the individuals...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:11 PMDon't laugh or take this lightly. It was only a few weeks ago when we read at comment #108
"we have a 12 gauge shotgun and a nice little revolver. I pray we won't ever have to use them.
Nuts like you are the reason we have them"
And Bill.... that arsenal is hardly sufficient in times like these to, as you said at comment #116
"blow their damned heads off. I'm more than ready for them. They'll get what they deserve."
You're not ready!
Pick up a pair of SR9s for yourself and each member of the family. This low-maintenance, rugged and reliable handgun is the perfect gift of comfort and protection for the whole family.
As that liberal pinko foreigner said:
Happiness is a warm gun yeah!
Actually, a few more dollars spent on modernizing equipment to not release monsters like Clemmons would have saved the lives of those four police officers. Gun laws would do nothing (he was a felon, already prohibited from carrying a firearm - and he was concealed carrying which is illegal without a permit which he did not have) to prevent this.
But that would be actually addressing the problem and leaving freedoms intact, and it doesn't seem as "we're doing something" in terms of media exposure, so that's what will happen. More gun bans.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:17 PMDon't laugh or take this lightly. It was only a few weeks ago when we read at comment #108
"we have a 12 gauge shotgun and a nice little revolver. I pray we won't ever have to use them.
Nuts like you are the reason we have them"
And Bill.... that arsenal is hardly sufficient in times like these to, as you said at comment #116
"blow their damned heads off. I'm more than ready for them. They'll get what they deserve."
You're not ready!
Pick up a pair of SR9s for yourself and each member of the family. This low-maintenance, rugged and reliable handgun is the perfect gift of comfort and protection for the whole family.
As that liberal pinko foreigner said:
Happiness is a warm gun yeah!
The more you see, the less you'll like.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 22, 2009 08:40 PMi only point it out because you and your buddies love to disparage the honorable female senator, but fail to criticize the other 'libtard' (as was so ineloquently termed) senators (kline, hunter) OR the SPD.
must be the guns that makes you feel so brave...
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 08:44 PMIf you actually read what I've posted here, you know I also criticize Mayor Nickels and those who support his illegal and unconstitutional ban. And I'll criticize anyone who attempts to restrict our State and Federally guaranteed rights to carry firearms in our personal defense.
Senator Kohl-Welles earns special attention because she's a media-whore who loves to make big splashes on meaningless bills in an attempt to curry favor with the extreme left. Not only is she ignorant of basic Constitutional rights, she's stupid enough to trumpet her ignorance all over the media. She deserves extra scorn.
I take it you also join me in that criticism or Senator Kohl-Welles, her accomplices in the State legislature, Mayor Nickels, and the SPD?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:49 PMBut then again, nothing says I love you on Christmas morning like a snub nose.357 Magnum. Among the most powerful small-frame revolvers on the market, these gems boast the strength to handle the powerful .357 Magnum and .327 Federal cartridges in a controllable, small-framed double-action revolver.
You Can Never Be Too Prepared.
Folks, you heard it from our poster!
Please, don't be the only commenter on SP not to give the gift of blue steel protection this holiday season.
And for goodness sakes, don't overpay!
Ruger offers you rugged reliable firearms at a very reasonable price.
the DOLT here is apparently you, who not only can't read, but are anti-semetic to boot.
you flat out admitted that not only are you a dumbass, but an anti-semetic douchebag. and thereby proving, conservatives CAN be racist. but realists on the left already knew that.
your parents must have been really proud.
dan,
you actually didn't criticize SPD or anyone else, just sen. kohl-welles. i don't think she's worried about losing out to a conservative.
i don't see the need to criticize the bill, because i don't see it as an infringement on my rights.
but i do think it should be public knowledge about who owns guns (sort of like sex offenders - i honestly have no desire to live next to someone owning 20x more guns than i do)
and i also agree that a large issue stems from lack of funding for WA corrections - but that's a discussion about wasted resources on drugs and failure of both Rs and Ds to have a rational discussion about failings/shortcomings of correctional policy and adequate funding (e.g. taxes, if needed)
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 09:17 PMWooops! Let's not argue about closing the barn door after the horse has left the county.
mike, your fears are reasonable. And right now someone whose possession of another gun would make you 21x more uncomfortable is picking one up.
But at the end of the day, the solution to the problem of the other guy having 20x more guns than you, is for you to buy
GUNS, GUNS, GUNS for Christmas!
Then I assume you're fine with Senator Kohl-Welles position on this issue. Fair enough, you can be on the wrong side, along with Mayor Nickels, Senator Kline, Rep. Hunter, the fools at Washington Ceasefire, and the Seattle Police Department.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 09:37 PMi could give a rats whether or not a bunch of conservative lemmings agree with me or not.
i said i was raised in a jewish household.
@57, you called me a pig and asked if i had ever heard of the nazi.
it wasn't very subtle. but it was pretty damn pathetic. did you, by chance, go down on fred phelps when he was in town?
dan,
fair enough, i'd consider that a decent group to be constitutionally upheld with.
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 09:41 PMIf you are against the proposed ban, buying a few more guns makes it that much harder the proposed legislation is ever enforceable.
If you are for the legislation you can't be too concerned about your self protection from Conspiracy Nuts and Stormfront members.
Guns for Peace this Christmas!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 09:50 PMlet's see...
a thousand potential insults, and you go for the racially charged slur.
claiming jewish heritage doesn't give you license to spit vitriolic anti-semetic remarks, moron.
lame. really effing lame.
Posted by: mike on December 22, 2009 10:44 PMfair enough, i'd consider that a decent group to be constitutionally upheld with.
Unfortunately the State Attorney General and the US Supreme Court disagree with your claim of constitutionality...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 11:15 PMJust curious--how exactly did they arrive at that determination? Was it a) a vote of SPD officers b) a consensus decision after extensive & open debate c) a prounouncement that came down from the politically appointed chief?
Rank & file cops are generally pro-gun; they were largely responsible for the defeat of I-676. I suspect I know the answer, but you tell me....
Posted by: travis t on December 23, 2009 12:19 AMI was away from my computer last night due to lack of electricity to my home (car hit a pole, I think), and I was not able to delete some posts that should have been, especially from Daniel and mike.
I won't go back and remove them now, they've been up too long, but I won't hesitate to remove others.
You are right. The Seattle Police Department policy is that of politically appointed officials who are repeatedly elected in to office by large majorities of voters. And other than being exactly like the employer you work for or anybody you know works for, the employees don't get to democratically determine company policies and positions.
What is to be done??
Time to Fight For Freedom in your work place!
Buy yourself a Gun for Christmas and take it to work for show and tell.
Show it to your fascist boss and tell him/her there are going to be some changes in 2010!
No, not making a point. Supporting yours emphatically. Give a Gun for Christmas.
I might add, that for our Jewish friends, Hanukkah and its celebration of revolt is another excellent opportunity to give the gift of lead spitting peace and security.
Oops. Try again?
No, not making a point
Stop lying.
"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," [Kohl-Welles] said.
She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
Kohl-Welles had a moment of telling the truth when she said "what we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of...weapons in this state". That is the true mission of these anti-constitution zealots- a total ban on any form of protection of any kind.
Feel free to contact one or more of their offices to express your concern for their lack of understanding of your constitutional rights.
Sen. Adam Kline D-37
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7688
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles D-36
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7670
Seattle Office: (206) 281-6854
kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Ross Hunter D-48
District office: (425) 453-3064
Olympia office: (360) 786-7936
hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov
If the stuff hits the fan, and I pray it does not, you're going to wish you had purchased a serious battle rifle, enough ammo for it (serious oxymoron -- you never will have enough ammo), and went to an appleseed shoot (www.appleseedinfo.org) to learn how to shoot it. Now... every one of you hop over to that site and sign up for an appleseed near you. It will be the best, most entertaining and even educational two days you ever spent.
Posted by: DDS -- NRA Life Member on December 23, 2009 06:19 AMBy the way - while they are busy restricting and dminishing the 2nd Amendment to a pile of rubble. Their next stop most certainly will be to silence critics and restrict the first Amendment.
Posted by: Jughead on December 23, 2009 06:28 AMI thought one had to undergo a background check when purchasing a weapon. If not, why did I have to fill out a form and wait 10 days before I could pick up my weapon?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 23, 2009 07:40 AMBecause as we saw with the monster Clemmons case, the State's background check is oh-so-much better than the Federal 4473 checks! After all, the State kept him locked up, and he never possessed a firearm (concealed at that) in violation of State and Federal law.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 23, 2009 08:01 AMSo to say that "SPD backs the bill" really just means 'The mayor backs the bill.' Why not just put it that way in the first place? It's a simpler, more economical, and more straitforward way of expressing the thought.
Posted by: travis t on December 23, 2009 08:05 AMBut it doesn't play on the fears and emotions of people, so we cannot say that. Much better to think that the police are 100% behind it, cowering in fear from all those felons with high powered fully automatic assault rifles.
If you just say "the mayor and his lone political appointment wants it", well, how do you make a big heart-tugging plea from that? I mean - think of the lobbyists... Won't somebody think of the lobbyists?!?!?!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 23, 2009 08:54 AMWhy does this state keep trying to mimic California? California is an utter failure. We should be doing the exact opposite of everything they have done.
Posted by: VInce on December 23, 2009 09:21 AMWhat's my point? Just that Maryland has similiar restrictions on firearm ownership compared to what these 3 dunces are proposing.
Yet 230 murders, how could that be? Could it be that criminals don't care about laws, and stuff?
Nah, gotta be the guns.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
Actually,the institutions of lower learning is where most of these state officials' views were molded and formed. They consider the US Constitution an archaic document not applicable in modern times because that is what their ivory tower professor spoon fed them in class. It's only getting worse with each passing year too. If they can't go after the guns, they'll go after the ammunition the gun uses. They don't really care about things like the constitutionality of such legislation as long as their short sighted ideological goals are met. Fragile egos need soothing.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 24, 2009 07:23 AMAlso, in this state if you have a concealed carry permit (from local police or sheriff department), you have no waiting period. Otherwise it's 10 days.
From my cold dead hands, bitch.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on December 25, 2009 03:05 PM"You really must wonder where these state officials went to school at?"
Irony is as delicious as Plum Pudding on Christmas morning.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 26, 2009 07:52 AMI think you don't know what that word means.
I think that the state Hunters Safety Course should be required for teenagers. and politicians. and college professors.
Posted by: teapartygrandma on December 27, 2009 02:20 PM