Post by: SCI on August 17, 2018, 12:15:19 PM
Yet another perfect example for why all gun owners and sportsmen need to be a member of the NRA.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180817/nra-wins-lawsuit-in-washington-state-prevents-i-1639-from-appearing-on-ballot
Post by: N7XW on August 17, 2018, 12:18:36 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 17, 2018, 12:19:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 17, 2018, 12:23:01 PM
NRA: https://membership.nra.org/Join/Annuals
SAF: https://www.saf.org/join-saf/
Post by: tritt007 on August 17, 2018, 12:26:27 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 17, 2018, 12:41:40 PM
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
Post by: Stein on August 17, 2018, 12:44:45 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 17, 2018, 12:45:22 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Post by: KFhunter on August 17, 2018, 12:48:08 PM
He supports 2A, but the party line doesn't. He can't support NRA because they support deplorables.
Trump puts money in his pocket, gives him a job, NRA let's him keep his guns, yet he looks down his nose at those that fight (give money) on his behalf.
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 17, 2018, 12:51:22 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Not at all. I don't mind the age limit of semi-auto rifles being raised to 21, but I think the safe storage law was totally punitive and unconstitutional.
It's almost like a person doesn't have to pick Team A or Team B and agree with everything the tribe elders say. Weird concept.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 17, 2018, 12:52:19 PM
He "supports" 2A, but the party line doesn't. He can't support NRA because they support deplorables.
Trump puts money in his pocket, gives him a job, NRA let's him keep his guns, yet he looks down his nose at those that fight (give money) on his behalf.
:yeah:
I am not at all convinced of the "support," when it amounts bemoaning the NRA, and "hey, guys. We've gotta give my lefty buddies something on gun control, so that they know we're serious.," in response to the Parkland shooting, for which LE and big government failures were legion and no further restrictions other than utopian complete bans would have prevented the shooting.
I'd rather be stabbed in the front, thank you.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 17, 2018, 12:54:39 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Not at all. I don't mind the age limit of semi-auto rifles being raised to 21, but I think the safe storage law was totally punitive and unconstitutional.
It's almost like a person doesn't have to pick Team A or Team B and agree with everything the tribe elders say. Weird concept.
So constitutional rights are not rights at all and can be destroyed at the whims of a frothing mob?
That IS a weird concept.
Post by: WSU on August 17, 2018, 01:12:45 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Not at all. I don't mind the age limit of semi-auto rifles being raised to 21, but I think the safe storage law was totally punitive and unconstitutional.
It's almost like a person doesn't have to pick Team A or Team B and agree with everything the tribe elders say. Weird concept.
So constitutional rights are not rights at all and can be destroyed at the whims of a frothing mob?
That IS a weird concept.
That's a gross oversimplification of "constitutional rights" and the 2nd Amendment. :twocents:
Bonus points though for characterizing anyone with a different opinion as part of the "frothing mob." Does it ever get tiring to constantly communicate in such a degrading manner?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 17, 2018, 01:19:51 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Not at all. I don't mind the age limit of semi-auto rifles being raised to 21, but I think the safe storage law was totally punitive and unconstitutional.
It's almost like a person doesn't have to pick Team A or Team B and agree with everything the tribe elders say. Weird concept.
So constitutional rights are not rights at all and can be destroyed at the whims of a frothing mob?
That IS a weird concept.
That's a gross oversimplification of "constitutional rights" and the 2nd Amendment. :twocents:
Bonus points though for characterizing anyone with a different opinion as part of the "frothing mob." Does it ever get tiring to constantly communicate in such a degrading manner?
I suppose you could answer that. Frothing mob was an allusion to tyranny of the majority, by which rights of a minority are stripped by the majority in a pure democracy, kind of like what is proposed by stripping 18-21 year olds of their 2A rights, which is hardly an oversimplification.
It was not directed to anyone in particular, and it was not made for the purpose of denigrating an ideological opponent.
You brought that with you, and you should bear that burden.
Post by: Alchase on August 17, 2018, 02:02:03 PM
Good for sure, but likely not permanent. Unless I am reading it wrong, they would simply have to increase the font and add the strikethoughs to have it comply and get on the next ballot?
Is this correct?
Post by: N7XW on August 17, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 17, 2018, 02:29:52 PM
Fairfax, Va.—The Thurston County Superior Court today ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law – the font size was too small to be readable and didn't include strikethroughs.
“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”
Among other things, I-1639;
• Creates a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles;
• Introduces a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles;
• Imposes criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards;
• Increases the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21;
• Mandates training prior to purchase;
• And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.
The initiative proponents will likely appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court and we will continue to advocate on behalf of our law-abiding members in the Evergreen state.
________________________________________
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.
Post by: bearpaw on August 17, 2018, 02:32:09 PM
JOIN THE NRA: https://membership.nra.org/Join/Annuals
Post by: Special T on August 17, 2018, 02:34:35 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.So then you like the Second Amendment foundation out of Bellevue, right? I get that you may not like the NRA, and I have mixed feelings, often because they make choices not to get involved when I think they should... if you dont like the NRA, SAF has a different focus on the same issue that should align with you if you have troubles with the NRA. 2c
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: baker5150 on August 17, 2018, 02:54:09 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.So then you like the Second Amendment foundation out of Bellevue, right? I get that you may not like the NRA, and I have mixed feelings, often because they make choices not to get involved when I think they should... if you dont like the NRA, SAF has a different focus on the same issue that should align with you if you have troubles with the NRA. 2c
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Mags will find the negative in any situation.
He'd win the lotto and complain about the weight of the check
Post by: Lucky1 on August 17, 2018, 03:54:21 PM
I don’t think they could get that done and get the signatures needed in time to get it on this years ballot. I don’t think there is enough time for them to appeal to the state Supreme Court and get a ruling in time for this election either. They will probably try it again in two years.Good for sure, but likely not permanent. Unless I am reading it wrong, they would simply have to increase the font and add the strikethoughs to have it comply and get on the next ballot?
Is this correct?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 17, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
It's nice that the NRA managed to take a break from hounding it's members for cash and funneling Russian money into the republican party to actually do its job.
NRA - A bar so low you could trip over it. Send money.
You sound like a disgruntled supporter of 1639. No surprise there.
Not at all. I don't mind the age limit of semi-auto rifles being raised to 21, but I think the safe storage law was totally punitive and unconstitutional.
It's almost like a person doesn't have to pick Team A or Team B and agree with everything the tribe elders say. Weird concept.
Yeah, just is odd that the NRA was a big part of this decision and you went to bashing. You certainly look like a closet anti-gunner when you make comments like that and then support outrageous parts of anti-2A legislation. Someone 18 not being able to buy ANY semi-auto firearm is a ridiculous proposition. The whole initiative is ridiculous.
Post by: bornhunter on August 17, 2018, 05:10:47 PM
Post by: Atroxus on August 17, 2018, 05:16:47 PM
Among other things, I-1639;
• Creates a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles;
• Introduces a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles;
• Imposes criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards;
• Increases the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21;
• Mandates training prior to purchase;
• And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.
I could get behind a 10 day wait, if it is waived for CPL holders. We put up with it for for pistols, why not have long guns treated the same? Maybe just consolidate the pistol and long gun laws so that we have a single set of gun laws that covers both? :dunno:
I also don't have a problem holding people liable for not securing their firearms. If my kid gets a hold of my gun because I failed to secure it, and shoots himself or someone else, then I should be held accountable for that.
I have always thought it was silly to have different age restrictions for pistols and long guns. If it were up to me and I had to pick a single age limit for pistols and long guns though then that age limit would be 18 for both though.
The others though i think are total BS, especially the gun registry. :bash:
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 17, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 17, 2018, 06:57:55 PM
So then you like the Second Amendment foundation out of Bellevue, right? I get that you may not like the NRA, and I have mixed feelings, often because they make choices not to get involved when I think they should... if you dont like the NRA, SAF has a different focus on the same issue that should align with you if you have troubles with the NRA. 2c
Yeah, I do support them. I've never given money, honestly, but from what I know of them, they seem like a good group of people and reasonable.
You certainly look like a closet anti-gunner when you make comments like that and then support outrageous parts of anti-2A legislation.
I refuse to submit to any kind of litmus test for being a good "2A guy."
:yeah: the 10 day wait across the board sounds reasonable. The other issue ive had is the age limit. When I transitioned from military to civilian life and career I laughed at the age limit for pistols. There were plenty of barney fifes that had no business carrying a firearm and were my superiors and yet here I am half the age and had more training, tighter groups and treated the firearm with more respect and I was the one that was looked at like I didnt know how to handle firearms or shoot them. :bash:
You are kind of making the anti's point for them, there. You were more qualified to have those weapons because you had the training and discipline.
The constitution doesn't mention training the Second Amendment, and I do believe any training requirements would invariably be abused , so I don't support any of that.
But you are playing right into their hand with statements like that.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 17, 2018, 07:27:28 PM
:tup:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 17, 2018, 07:44:50 PM
We have all the laws nessasary in place , no more are needed.
Post by: Hi-Liter on August 17, 2018, 08:01:44 PM
Post by: Axle on August 17, 2018, 09:01:15 PM
Quote
Mandates training prior to purchase
And training is something that is (or should be) done by parents (usually the father).
The lack of fathers in American society has lead to so much corruption.
Paying women to have babies has led to the lack of a male figure in this society.
The lack of a father (male figure) has had detrimental impacts on our culture - along with other cultures and countries.
Most politicians are typically not capable of managing a nation. They make too many disastrous decisions and then try to punish society for their mistakes when things they implemented go wrong.
Need I say more?
Post by: WSU on August 17, 2018, 09:42:09 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2018, 01:27:50 PM
So then you like the Second Amendment foundation out of Bellevue, right? I get that you may not like the NRA, and I have mixed feelings, often because they make choices not to get involved when I think they should... if you dont like the NRA, SAF has a different focus on the same issue that should align with you if you have troubles with the NRA. 2c
Yeah, I do support them. I've never given money, honestly, but from what I know of them, they seem like a good group of people and reasonable.You certainly look like a closet anti-gunner when you make comments like that and then support outrageous parts of anti-2A legislation.
I refuse to submit to any kind of litmus test for being a good "2A guy.":yeah: the 10 day wait across the board sounds reasonable. The other issue ive had is the age limit. When I transitioned from military to civilian life and career I laughed at the age limit for pistols. There were plenty of barney fifes that had no business carrying a firearm and were my superiors and yet here I am half the age and had more training, tighter groups and treated the firearm with more respect and I was the one that was looked at like I didnt know how to handle firearms or shoot them. :bash:
You are kind of making the anti's point for them, there. You were more qualified to have those weapons because you had the training and discipline.
The constitution doesn't mention training the Second Amendment, and I do believe any training requirements would invariably be abused , so I don't support any of that.
But you are playing right into their hand with statements like that.
You would fail a litmus test for being a "good 2A guy". You're not.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 18, 2018, 01:56:48 PM
An age requirement of any age is an infringement of any U.S citizens rights.
Any training requirement would be an infringement on any U.S citizens rights.
This whole thing was written,pushed and signed for both Un American and stupid people that signed before reading this.
Post by: bearpaw on August 18, 2018, 01:59:05 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 18, 2018, 02:00:45 PM
The 2nd Amendment is a right not a hunting license or other type of license where you agree to abide by certain rules pertaining to the lciense. You are not required to have training to express your first amendment rights, you shouldn't be required to have a license for the 2nd Amendment. When you have to start meeting requirements other than citizenship for our constitutional rights we are no longer free people with rights! :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 18, 2018, 02:21:45 PM
Exactly :yeah: :tup:The 2nd Amendment is a right not a hunting license or other type of license where you agree to abide by certain rules pertaining to the lciense. You are not required to have training to express your first amendment rights, you shouldn't be required to have a license for the 2nd Amendment. When you have to start meeting requirements other than citizenship for our constitutional rights we are no longer free people with rights! :twocents:
Post by: Hi-Liter on August 18, 2018, 11:08:00 PM
Anyone know which judge it was?
Judge Dixon. Judge Dixon was a former FBI agent.
Post by: SCRUBS on August 18, 2018, 11:19:17 PM
The 2nd Amendment is a right not a hunting license or other type of license where you agree to abide by certain rules pertaining to the lciense. You are not required to have training to express your first amendment rights, you shouldn't be required to have a license for the 2nd Amendment. When you have to start meeting requirements for rights we are no longer free people with rights! :twocents:
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Atroxus on August 19, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
No on the entire piece.A 10 day wait is 10 days of infringement's on a citizen of this U.S.Unconstitutional period and could be life threatening and is as bad as I-594.
An age requirement of any age is an infringement of any U.S citizens rights.
Any training requirement would be an infringement on any U.S citizens rights.
This whole thing was written,pushed and signed for both Un American and stupid people that signed before reading this.
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 20, 2018, 06:07:23 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 20, 2018, 07:36:09 AM
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Careful now. That kind of critical thinking is going to get you labeled a lib. Best just go with the crowd and blow up your Yeti cooler or whatever else you have to do to be a "good 2A guy."
The training thing is a solution without a problem. Are we seeing multiple shootings happening because people aren't trained?
That's ridiculous. People accidentally shoot themselves all the time. Youtube has hundreds of videos of it.
For the record, I agree with you. I don't think there should be training requirements or "safe storage" requirements for owning a gun. But I've also be around ranges my whole life and can say definitively that a significant portion of gun owners are completely unqualified to safely use the weapons they own.
Post by: bearpaw on August 20, 2018, 07:39:15 AM
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Careful now. That kind of critical thinking is going to get you labeled a lib. Best just go with the crowd and blow up your Yeti cooler or whatever else you have to do to be a "good 2A guy."The training thing is a solution without a problem. Are we seeing multiple shootings happening because people aren't trained?
That's ridiculous. People accidentally shoot themselves all the time. Youtube has hundreds of videos of it.
For the record, I agree with you. I don't think there should be training requirements or "safe storage" requirements for owning a gun. But I've also be around ranges my whole life and can say definitively that a significant portion of gun owners are completely unqualified to safely use the weapons they own.
The same can be said for autos and household knives, there are accidents everyday, where's the legislation to outlaw them?
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 20, 2018, 08:19:24 AM
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Careful now. That kind of critical thinking is going to get you labeled a lib. Best just go with the crowd and blow up your Yeti cooler or whatever else you have to do to be a "good 2A guy."The training thing is a solution without a problem. Are we seeing multiple shootings happening because people aren't trained?
That's ridiculous. People accidentally shoot themselves all the time. Youtube has hundreds of videos of it.
For the record, I agree with you. I don't think there should be training requirements or "safe storage" requirements for owning a gun. But I've also be around ranges my whole life and can say definitively that a significant portion of gun owners are completely unqualified to safely use the weapons they own.
The same can be said for autos and household knives, there are accidents everyday, where's the legislation to outlaw them?
I've always thought that the car argument was dangerous territory for 2nd Amendment advocates. There are dozens of federal regulations, forced under duress, onto the auto industry that quantifiably make the car you drive every day, safer. Things like airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, break-away engine mounts, the little glow in the dark tab that lets you escape if you ever accidentally get locked in your own trunk. Your vehicle is federally mandated that in order to be sold in the US, it has to be able to support twice its own weight on its roof.
Would anyone argue that a 1970 model of anything is safer than a car built today?
Cars and guns are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. But "people die in cars too" is such a rote argument to gun control and it always made me cringe because the comparison really doesn't run in our favor.
Post by: baker5150 on August 20, 2018, 08:58:55 AM
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Careful now. That kind of critical thinking is going to get you labeled a lib. Best just go with the crowd and blow up your Yeti cooler or whatever else you have to do to be a "good 2A guy."The training thing is a solution without a problem. Are we seeing multiple shootings happening because people aren't trained?
That's ridiculous. People accidentally shoot themselves all the time. Youtube has hundreds of videos of it.
For the record, I agree with you. I don't think there should be training requirements or "safe storage" requirements for owning a gun. But I've also be around ranges my whole life and can say definitively that a significant portion of gun owners are completely unqualified to safely use the weapons they own.
The same can be said for autos and household knives, there are accidents everyday, where's the legislation to outlaw them?
I've always thought that the car argument was dangerous territory for 2nd Amendment advocates. There are dozens of federal regulations, forced under duress, onto the auto industry that quantifiably make the car you drive every day, safer. Things like airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, break-away engine mounts, the little glow in the dark tab that lets you escape if you ever accidentally get locked in your own trunk. Your vehicle is federally mandated that in order to be sold in the US, it has to be able to support twice its own weight on its roof.
Would anyone argue that a 1970 model of anything is safer than a car built today?
Cars and guns are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. But "people die in cars too" is such a rote argument to gun control and it always made me cringe because the comparison really doesn't run in our favor.
Death toll vs regulation.
I could argue it favors the 2A by saying, even with all those regulations on cars, the death tolls continue to be high.
AND, with little regulation, gun deaths have dropped. Even while both areas of ownership has risen.
More regulations does not necessarily equal a safer product. It's the end users responsibility to use said product in a safe manner.
Post by: Hi-Liter on August 21, 2018, 09:55:34 AM
Post by: baker5150 on August 21, 2018, 10:13:20 AM
I really like the words of "common sense." Its such a polarizing word to make "people" or politicians feel good about taking rights away
"Common Sense" is a term used to make those who oppose seam less intelligent. As if they have no "common sense".
It's tactic used by the anti's in literally every thing they spew, yet, they avoid using "common sense" when it comes to fact checking.
Post by: Igor on August 21, 2018, 10:19:35 AM
So you think a 12 year old should be able to walk into any gun store with money they got for Christmases/birthdays and buy any gun they have available, with no restrictions, or any way to prove that they are not going to go home and shoot themselves or someone else? Anyone willing to sell guns to a kid under 18 years old in my opinion is irresponsible at best, or criminally negligent at worst. We have restrictions on the first amendment as well, for example it has been ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, nor is making threats.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian and believe less is better when it comes to laws, however I also think that common sense should come into play when deciding what should/should not be legal though.
Careful now. That kind of critical thinking is going to get you labeled a lib. Best just go with the crowd and blow up your Yeti cooler or whatever else you have to do to be a "good 2A guy."The training thing is a solution without a problem. Are we seeing multiple shootings happening because people aren't trained?
That's ridiculous. People accidentally shoot themselves all the time. Youtube has hundreds of videos of it.
For the record, I agree with you. I don't think there should be training requirements or "safe storage" requirements for owning a gun. But I've also be around ranges my whole life and can say definitively that a significant portion of gun owners are completely unqualified to safely use the weapons they own.
The same can be said for autos and household knives, there are accidents everyday, where's the legislation to outlaw them?
I've always thought that the car argument was dangerous territory for 2nd Amendment advocates. There are dozens of federal regulations, forced under duress, onto the auto industry that quantifiably make the car you drive every day, safer. Things like airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, break-away engine mounts, the little glow in the dark tab that lets you escape if you ever accidentally get locked in your own trunk. Your vehicle is federally mandated that in order to be sold in the US, it has to be able to support twice its own weight on its roof.
Would anyone argue that a 1970 model of anything is safer than a car built today?
Cars and guns are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. But "people die in cars too" is such a rote argument to gun control and it always made me cringe because the comparison really doesn't run in our favor.
Do you have to have a license to buy a car ?? No !!!
Do you have to pass a background check to buy a car ?? No !!
Do you have to have a license to drive a car on your own property ?? No !!
Are there any age restrictions on buying a car ?? Not that I'm aware of !!
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 21, 2018, 08:48:37 PM
More regulations does not necessarily equal a safer product. It's the end users responsibility to use said product in a safe manner.
I agree with you. And there are industry regulations on guns that make them safer. Things like drop tests and metallurgy requirements and whatnot.
My point was that I've never liked comparing guns to other things in terms of "dangerous-ness." It isn't the same. If a particular car is dangerous, then it's a bad car and SHOULD be pulled off the market or regulated out. A gun is not the same thing. A gun is a weapon. It's supposed to be dangerous. That's its whole purpose.
Every living thing has evolved a survival strategy along the way. Strong, big, fast, armored, venomous, aggressive, camouflage, etc etc. Humans survive because we are intelligent enough to make tools. We've put all our eggs in that basket. Without the tools to collect food, we couldn't feed ourselves much beyond starvation. We'd be like raccoons, but raccoons that are failures.
To me, the gun control argument has never been about how much more or less a gun is dangerous than a motorcycle or a trampoline. It's about who is allowed to control the use of weapons, which as a species with a tool-dependent survival strategy, is just as vital to us as a scorpion's stinger and exoskeleton.
Post by: wafisherman on August 21, 2018, 08:53:05 PM
It's about who is allowed to control the use of weapons
Fortunately, the 2nd Amendment makes that pretty clear. :tup:
Post by: Hi-Liter on August 24, 2018, 08:49:44 PM
Post by: bornhunter on August 24, 2018, 09:31:04 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 24, 2018, 09:46:14 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 24, 2018, 09:50:34 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on August 24, 2018, 10:47:52 PM
That’s depressing. It will more tan likely pass too. The unconstitutional parts will have to be litigated afterward. The legal system will make more money.
I sure hope the US Senate confirms a bunch of federal judges that Trump has appointed. That should help us keep our rights.
Post by: luckyman on August 25, 2018, 06:18:32 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 25, 2018, 10:30:31 AM
:tup: I hope it holds up under appeal. We have a pretty liberal SC.
I hate being right about this one but our state government only follows the law when it aligns with their agenda, including the completely liberalized SC. It's disgusting how they're above the law. It's representative of liberal judges across the nation. It'll now go to the 9th Circuit. Lots of luck there, too. :bash:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 25, 2018, 10:31:55 AM
Post by: JimSR. on September 19, 2018, 08:20:05 AM
Our state SC judges are elected. Vote, people.
This right here is the downfall of any rights that we have left in Washington.
A lot of hunters and gun owners do not vote, they just want to be left alone to live life in pursuit of happiness. I've got news for everybody that ain't going to happen nowadays there's always going to be some liberal that's going to put a stick in your back.
Get ready to start talking to anybody and everybody about this so they can pass it on and so on. This is our fight and no organization, not the NRA nor SAF is going to save our rights.