Anti-gun WA lawmakers launch new assault on weapons; press doesn’t help

[oneshooter]

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Adam Kline (D-37th District), said in a telephone interview Wednesday that “the characteristics of a weapon…make it more lethal.”
And what characteristics are these? If it has a hand guard, a pistol grip, a large magazine and maybe a folding stock, and if it is semiautomatic. Sen. Kline is concerned about the “lethality” of a firearm; design characteristics that would allow someone to fire rapidly into a crowd.

The murder weapon in Seattle was a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that does not meet the definition of an “assault weapon” and doesn’t even look like a rifle that might be mistakenly identified as a “military style semiautomatic assault weapon.”

“I define lethality as the ability of a shooter or a weapon that gives the ability to a shooter to kill large numbers of people at a time,” Kline explained.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d17-Antigun-WA-lawmakers-launch-new-assault-on-weapons-press-doesnt-help

If LOOKS could kill!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

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

Yes, you blithering idiot, the Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Same rifle Meriwether Lewis carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Austrians were killing the Turks and the Prussians with it when the 2nd was ratified. Please consult your nearest American history book, you jackalope.

The very rifle Meriwether Lewis carried is now on display in the National Archives.

[joecool65]

3. You're right, weapons have not changed at all in the last 220 years

:sarcasm:

[taurus145]

8. Cherry picking?

Remember that the next time you decide to use foul in public. It was common practice to fine, jail, or lash such indecency when the Constitution first became law. How well do you think Maplethorpe's "art" would have fared in that day?

The Constitution is as valid today as it was then. Court rulings have broadened our rights in almost every area except 2A. 2A is the only part of our rights that is constantly under attack because of people who want to cherry pick our rights and deny some to those with whom they disagree.

It's akin to saying, "I want a divorce. You never farted while we were dating."

Regardless of what you may think the framers could or could not have envisioned, they were well aware of scientific advances of their day. Remember that randy old hanger on that invented bifocals and the scribe who invented the dumb waiter and recliner? Are you so obtuse that you can't envision them imagining that firearms would advance in quality and abilities?

They lived in a changing world. They know more change would come. There are no caveats about types of arms in 2A. There are no caveats about speech in 1A. How about we add, "Unless you're guilty," to 5A? I could go on.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. That wasn't the question.

The question was whether or not the framers could have envisioned what we have recently termed in legislation an 'assault weapon', the particulars in this case being a removable magazine, and semi-automatic fire, in a weapon that was in some way related to a miltiary firearm.

So no, the technology in question has not changed appreciably since 1791.

[TPaine7]

6. I doubt this woman has even a passing interest in the historical facts.

If you spoke to her personally, she would likely ignore the truth and transition to another argument. If you knocked that one down, she would simply repeat as necessary--while getting angry.

I don't know her, of course. I base my guess on the tactics of those who post such arguments here.

[PavePusher]

20. You mean... It's iverglas???!!

Naw, couldn't be. She uses dismissivness, vitriol and profanity.

[Euromutt]

21. Did the Framers ever envision something like radio, or the internet?

We tend to think the Framers were smart enough to take into account that technology would continue to develop; they knew they'd come a long way since the Dark Ages, and therefore could assume that that the technology of their day wasn't going to be the pinnacle of human achievement. Hamilton, to use my favorite founding father as an example, was a strong proponent of industrialization, which he saw as the way forward.

We know that by "freedom of speech, or of the press," the Framers did not literally mean only speech and printed materials, because there were other methods of communication available at the time. If you'd said at the time, "so the First Amendment doesn't apply to songs, hand-written materials, hand-drawn cartoons, semaphore flags, etc. because they're not listed here" they'd have told you were being deliberately obtuse, and they'd be right.

So nobody except the most extreme Luddite really has an issue with the idea that "freedom of speech, or of the press" also covers technologies developed since 1800, including telegraphy, telephony, wireless broadcasting, and the internet. Nobody makes the objection "did the Framers ever envision this technology?" or if they do, they're laughed out of the room.

And let's not kid ourselves; we know that even before the Revolutionary War, plenty of people had been trying to develop weapons that were an improvement on the muzzle-loading flintlock. Aside from the Gilardoni (which wasn't completed until 1779, entering Austrian military service in 1780), there had been the breech-loading Ferguson rifle, which actually saw action in the Revolutionary War; and the Ferguson in turn was based on a French design from 1720. So the Framers were aware that there were plenty of people who were trying to improve on firearms technology, and that somebody would soon or later succeed. After all, the flintlock of the day had supplanted the wheellock and matchlock of previous centuries, and rifled barrels were a comparatively new invention at the time too.

So while the Framers might not have specifically envisioned a semi-automatic rifle feeding self-contained cartridge rounds from a detachable magazine, they must have been able to envision that firearms technology was going to be developed beyond where it was when they adopted the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights. And they still adopted it.

[tburnsten]

22. How do I recommend a post?

Seriously, I don't think it could have been said better.

[burrfoot]

28. Really? It was Hamilton?

Then, for both myself and my family, allow me to apologize for Aaron getting all fiesty on the dueling ground. }(


:toast:

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Too bad, I think the media should help passing real gun control laws.

I am not in favor of Neighborhood arms races.

[taurus145]

12. You're obviously not in favor of Constitutional rights, period.

There is no qualification in 2A.

Let's restrict speech while we're at it. I'm tired of being offended by foul language and bad grammar.

[SteveM]

13. You need to catch up on the last 30+ years, MSM has been doing just as you wish...

with the WaPo the agit-prop of record for gun-controllers, to say nothing of CBS, the McClatchy papers and AP; in fact, they have served as the strongest force behind the rather shriveled status of the gun-control movement.

Now that you are caught up on that, please keep in mind that any laws must conform to and not be in violation of the Constitution. "eighborhood" status is irrelevant.

[TheWraith]

15. Like the media helped "protect us from terrorism" by supporting Bush's constitutional crimes?

Breaking constitutional law doesn't become okay when it's about a non-existent fantasy threat YOU are worried about, versus a non-existent fantasy threat someone ELSE thought of.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. The old media has always attempted to demonize guns.

The have controlled the message about guns for decades. In the past few years, with the spread of the internet, the new media is enabling the pro-RKBA side to get our message before the public. And we, the pro-gun side, are winning.

The quoted article is a mew media one.

[Euromutt]

19. I've never seen a neighborhood arms race; what are those like?

Can you describe the process? Can you recount a few examples of neighborhood arms races you've witnessed?

Because in my neighborhood, while I'm fairly certain there must be a number of people who own guns, I don't see them ostentatiously loading them into their vehicles for range or hunting trips, or neighbors saying "oh, I have to get a 6.8mm upper to stay ahead of the folks on the corner."

The only "arms race" I've seen in my neighborhood seems to be the one involving Christmas decorations.

[Bumblebee]

4. you obviously do not live in WA state

otherwise you would know that the killing was not in Seattle. I find your post offensive for many more crucial reasons and tried to put you on my ignore list but somehow you are not even a registered member...

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Since when is the Central District not part of Seattle?

Or did you mistakenly refer to the killings down in Parkland, which were NOT the impetus for the creation of this bill?

Did you read Workman's article? Also, Oneshooter didn't write that, he's quoting Workman, who is correct. The CD is part of the greater Seattle area.

[oneshooter]

14. if you would read and pay attention to the words

I quoted the article, I did not write the article, if I wasn't a member how could I post?
Bottom line

Livin in Texas
is because I "Live in Texas"

Please engage brain BEFORE typing.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

17. I live in South King

And I for one rather resent the notion that you somehow speak for the entire state, or even just the Puget Sound area. So why don't we just leave the personal sensibilities out of it and focus on the issues?

Both the Sullivan and Brenton shootings were in Leschi. I think that was also were Clemmons turned out to be staying at the time of the Lakewood police murders. Frankly, outlawing Leschi--ludicrous as that would be--would make more sense than outlawing so-called "assault weapons," given that Sullivan was shot with an SKS-pattern carbine and Brenton with a Kel-Tec SU-16, neither of which meets the definition of an "assault weapon." Even the Seattle Times describes the weapon used in the Sullivan shooting as an "assault-style weapon," as if "assault weapon" itself wasn't already a highly malleable term.

[benEzra]

5. There were 190 murders reported fror the entire state of Washington in 2008.

Of those, two (yes, 2) of those reported involved ANY type of rifle, even evil scawwy black ones.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Someone please tell Chicken Little that the sky is not falling...

[bossy22]

7. Prediction

This bill will die in committee

[AtheistCrusader]

10. There's a whole graveyard full of similar bills somewhere in Olympia.

I just object to the public airing of so much bald faced ignorance on the part of our elected representatives.


Why do we vote for stupid people?

[Euromutt]

18. Very likely

Still, this is something I'm going to want to keep my eye on. In the (admittedly unlikely) even that it does get out of committee, I'm going to have start writing my legislators (none of whom are these bozos, I'm happy to say).

[Tejas]

23. "semiautomatics designed for military use"

from:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010527541_gunban17m.html

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.


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

Not sure why Fascitelli phrased his words the way he did, almost sounds as if he's along for the ride, maybe I'm reading it wrong. On the other hand, the 2 Senators and the Rep are apparently regulars at the Bradylade fountain.

[Tejas]

24. more on Fascitelli (prez of Washington Ceasefire)

The name "Washington Ceasefire" sounds anti-gun, but looking at the website would make one think they're actually pro-gun. They promote gun-safety for kids and have all sorts of info available for gun owners...but that's where it ends.

from their website:

"We think (Nickels) has done the best job possible, and we're excited that he's willing to put his neck on the line for this. This is a common sense law that can really protect people."

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


My bad for not spotting Fascitelli as a grabber the first time around.

[SteveM]

25. You might want to check this out, too. VERY bad blood....

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/11/cop-killing_remarks_ignite_war.php

[Tejas]

27. WOW! By the way, there are 2 different "Washington Ceasefire" website

this one hands out 55gal drums of Bradylade:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.org



this one is pro-gun:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.net


They look the same as far as color and text arangement, but that's where the similarity ends. That's what messed me up when I thought Fascitelli was anti (which he is), then had a WTF moment when I saw the .NET site.


Clear as mud? :rofl:

[PavePusher]

26. Talk about open-ended...

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

Could be used for lever-action rifles, all pistols both revolver and semi-auto....

Fascitelli is a brain-damaged fool.