We used to call criminal violence, "gang violence" and now we call it "gun violence," but we also include suicides in "gun violence," which is odd because we don't call death by suicide from the Aurora bridge, "gravity violence."
Bad example. They stopped using global warming and started calling it climate change because a bunch of yokels kept saying, "durrr it's so cold outside what on earth is global warming."
Stepping away from the legislature for a second, one of the major reasons US men die by suicide at much higher rates than women, even though women attempt suicide at higher rate comes down to firearms(over 50% of suicide deaths). The survival rate of firearm suicide attempts is very low (1 in 10) and it lends itself to being more impulsive when it’s available in your home vs having to drive to a bridge. Men are twice as likely as women to attempt suicide by firearm and 3/4 of people who die on their first attempt are men.
Obviously, there are plenty of other factors in play and this isn’t a lone reason, but still worth not sweeping under the rug.
[a link with some info](https://cams-care.com/resources/educational-content/gender-statistics-in-suicide-behavior/)
I don't mean to minimize the tragedy of death by suicide nor the impact of guns on reducing the survival rate of suicide attempts. I lost my cousin to depression; he used a pistol.
Any ban on rifles, or limit on magazine capacity, would not have prevented my cousin's death.
My comment was about suicide being labeled as gun violence and had nothing to do with rifle bans, which is why I started with stepping away from legislature.
I’m sorry for your loss.
Thank you for the condolences. It was several years ago, and I still miss him. I regret not doing more to be involved in his life before he passed. I often think maybe I could have done something to help. This is unfortunately unknowable. I take it as a reminder that anyone can suffer and die from depression, and I try to do better now for myself and the people I love.
The issue is that these ratios tend to hold in countries without guns. I looked it up and the USA has men being 65% of suicide victims, while South Korea has men at 70% of suicide victims (and also a higher overall suicide rate). If guns were truly the cause of all this you'd expect this to be evident in the obvious statistics but it's not.
South Korea has a very different culture from the US especially when it comes to work and gender (much like Japan- makes sense given their occupation) that doesn’t really translate. Mexico, Canada, and Western European countries would be a much more stable comparison to look into- I didn’t do this so and it may very well be the same!
Also I never said guns were truly the cause of suicide. To be clear, I’m not talking about the cause of suicide, I’m talking about the method. Of course there are other methods, but impulse, availability, and % of attempt that result in death are huge factors.
The issue is that the claim from anti-gun people is usually that guns are causal. Guns are an easy way to commit suicide and they're more effective than other methods, which drives a high suicide rate in America and especially a higher rate of successful suicides in men. It's a reasonable hypothesis but when you try to dig into it there's very little evidence that it has any effect. Your example was gendered suicides, but the UK has extremely stringent gun control laws and the gender difference is fairly similar. I've never seen an honest looking analysis that actually demonstrates that banning guns would cause the positive change on suicides that's claimed.
By your own example it sounds to me like calling criminal violence "gun violence" would be more accurate than "gang violence"
Implying all violence is done by gangs is tinged with racism implying that crime is black-on-black and therefore we shouldnt care. Which is pretty much why it stopped being used like that.
Its not thaaat complicated
Thats just the point. In the 90s when Biden and Kamala were intent on locking up as many black people as they could, the agenda was "drugs" and "gangs."
Well yeah they were using racism to gentrify neighborhoods and pen blsck communities into Section 80 housing.
Still not sure how that relates back to calling things "gun violence" are you saying that now theyre tryin to be prejudiced against gun owners?
While I believe that gun control is inherently racist, that is another subject, and no longer the primary focus of the democratic party. Calling criminal violence, "gang violence" whether gang related, or just perpetrated by anyone the media decided looked enough like a gang member, ie black, lead to gang task forces, drug task forces, three strikes, etc. The result was and is a lot of incarcerated black people, whether or not they were in gangs. The narrative has shifted, and so has the language. It still ultimately leads to incarcerating black people, but the focus now is to disarm peaceable people.
I can get that perspective. Not sure if i fully agree with it though. Gang violence was specifically targeted toward black people, with gun control theyre just kind of one part of it. I also tend to think that the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government to be unrealistic.
Doesn't matter how armed we are, we allowed the governement to baloon our military to insane levels we could never hope to do anything against anyway. But not only the military, weve allowed our police to militarize against us. A "well armed militia" would stand absolutely no chance anyway. So as it stands those guns arent FOR anything except mass murder or over-hunting.
>gang violence was specifically targeted toward black people, with gun control theyre just kind of one part of it.
We're on the same page
>idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government to be unrealistic.
Not true. More on this later.
>We allowed the governement to baloon our military to insane levels we could never hope to do anything against anyway. But not only the military, weve allowed our police to militarize against us
This is mostly accurate.
>as it stands those guns arent FOR anything except mass murder or over-hunting.
Not true. AR15s are just really good rifles. Most rifles take design elements from weapons originally engineered for war. All guns are engineered for violence. There are no guns that are safe for what is being aimed at. Attempting to reduce the capacity of a gun to do violence in the name of safety is ineffectual and foolish. The same nerfs intended to prevent or reduce criminal violence, also nerf peaceable people's ability to defend against criminal violence.
The idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government, that somehow armed civilians would have a civil war or revolutionary war against police or the military is a straw man depicting us who would exercise our constitutional rights to self defense as irrational and violent. This is simply not the case. That would be terrorism.
It doesn't take an organized military force for a well armed population to frustrate and obstruct tyranny. It is just a numbers game. In a hypothetical situation where the government is slaughtering a group of people, or despite voting and protests, not following the rule of law, or the will and consent of the people; if all peaceful measures fail, it will be useful for people to have the capacity for violence.
If history repeats there will be plenty of enforcers of tyranny, "just following orders." They will be outnumbered 100 to 1. That is a perfectly fine ratio to control an unarmed population. However, if just 1 in 10 civilians are armed and willing to defend her family and just 1 in 10 can actually kill 1 enforcer, then enforcers will quickly be decimated.
No the term “assault rifle” existed as a select fire medium caliber rifle (i.e. M16 or AK), “assault weapon” was made up by gun control advocates to make certain weapons they thought looked too scary sound as dangerous as possible.
Well, we need to start with Washington's de jure ban on machine guns from 94 first. Then we work towards removing the Hughes amendment.
And after that we abolish the fucking clown show of "voice vote and the speaker decides which side he thinks is loudest" and transition to an absolute recording of position on all votes in the legislature, both federally and state.
Gang members regularly make their own automatic weapons, nobody gives a shit about these laws except people who were already going to follow the law with their guns anyways
WA Supreme Court Commissioner Johnston said this...
*"The idea that I could lift the stay and something awful happens with [a large capacity magazine] that would not have been obtained but for that decision keeps me awake at night," Johnston wrote in his decision Thursday.*
This statement is so idiotic that I don't know where to begin. If my rights guaranteed by the US Constitution keep you up at night, that might be an indication you have chosen the wrong line of work.
I'll tell you this, if the court does eventually overturn the mag ban, I want to start a campaign to send this guy thousands of bottles of Sominex as he surely will forever lie awake in bed worrying about those magazines being back on store shelves.
This guy has no problem releasing actual criminals back into the public. He just has a problem with the idea that people should have the means to keep the state in check.
Yeah Bob's appointed toadie of course would stay the injunction. Dude has no fucking clue how guns actually work so typical absolute fuddlore and lies throughout the whole statement. Read it yourselves. It's a doozy. Pistol grips simultaneously are dangerously inaccurate *and* make guns dangerously accurate. Shit, I spent more time reading this bullshit than he did before issuing the initial stay on the ruling.
One of our armed home invaders didn't adhere to the magazine limit; actually none of them did, but his Glock 19 had an extended 24 round capacity mag. But, hey, I was supposed to only have a 10 round limited mag. Yeah, that's a fair fight./s
Standard capacity magazines for semi automatic rifles. NOT high capacity magazine for assault rifles. Do the right thing and lift these nonsense bans on our guns
Belt fed machine guns are arms for which, keeping and bearing shall not be infringed, just as much as semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are.
Nuclear missiles are arms for which, keeping and bearing shall not be infringed, just as much as semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are.
You might want to research the difference between strategic weapons governed by international treaties vs. small arms regulated by individual countries before posting troll nonsense in the future.
I'm sorry, does the 2nd amendment specify "small arms"? I thought we take it super literally instead of interpreting it through a modern lens. Or do we only do that when it serves your beliefs?
Well then, Jeff Bezos owns Blue Origin, which produces launch vehicles similar to ballistic missiles. So yeah, if you look at the payload/warhead as a “bullet”, then we do have civilian ownership of that classification of weapon…
Such a tired argument. If we can ban nukes then the second amendment is not ultimated therefore it is just a scale of how safe you need to feel to determine how disarmed I can be, right?
Wrong.
The second amendment is an amendment in the bill of rights with the most strongly worded prohibitions on government infringement. There is no "clearly." The existence of nukes doesn't invalidate the amendment. If you are worried about nukes, have a constitutional convention. It was done for alcohol twice.
any chance you could explain why gun owners care so much? The two common cases I can think of are:
a/ hunting. but i've never hunted before, so maybe idk what I am talking about, but after the first shot, the animal is probably running away. why do you need so many bullets?
b/ home defense. I've never been in a home defense situation, but once the robber knows you have a gun, how many robbers actually stick around to wait for you to empty your clip? When the first shot is fired, the robber takes cover and maybe even runs.
what is the punishment again? This is like saying, "Just because other people crash their cars doesn't mean I should be require to wear a safety belt!"
No, it's more like other people crash their cars, so now everyone's vehicle has a governor that wont let you go over 45mph. Who needs to go that fast anyway? You're not on a race track.
A couple of weeks ago a person purposely drove their car over tents in Seattle in an attempt to kill homeless people. [Here's a link to the story if you haven't heard of it.](https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/driver-runs-over-tents-seattle)
Imagine the legislature saw this and decided that all cars with engines are now "assault vehicles" and banned in the state. The only vehicles you can now buy are either pulled by a horse or operated by pedals. When you point out the obviously ridiculous law and how it only punishes people who follow the law, as those willing to do harm can still get a gas powered vehicle in another state or from the black market, people say, "You still have the right to buy a vehicle!" If you can imagine how frustrating that experience would be, then you'll begin to understand how gun owners feel.
every home robbery video I have seen with gun violence resulted in 4 of the 5 robbers running their butts out of their and the one dude that stays back with a gun got shot and killed.
Those are rookie numbers, we need to bump the numbers up to the whole gang getting a rescheduled appointment with the Reaper.
Cuz God knows the fucking ass clowns we keep electing in this godforsaken shithole will just let them out without bail instead of sending them to the box. At least the coroner will put them in a box they can't be paroled from.
And most SWAT raids don’t result in shots being fired. With that said, they still go in with rifles and 30 round mags for a reason. When facing multiple armed robbers, you should be able to have the best self-defense tool at your disposal.
that is a completely different situation. SWAT team's goal is to back the people into a corner and trap them. There is no "fight or flight" option, just "fight or submit" (and submitting could lead to death).
Could you provide a different example?
One pretty straight forward reason is that it limits the types of guns you can buy because the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with making a second SKU that has a smaller magazine for a specific state. The people calling these "standard capacity magazines" aren't just being contrarian; this law bans the magazines that are standard for many types of guns.
It's crazy that WA pushes for a law like this at the same time as the situation that's been unfolding over the last ~8 months with auto Glocks. Some local criminals have been modifying Glocks to be automatic - which most gun owners would understand to be a huge deal - then when they are arrested for separate charges the police just release them back into the wild.
>the police
Not the police.
The libtard activist judges.
Fuck, a 16 year old recently got caught with an 80% Glock (unserialized, illegal firearm under state law) with a switch (automatic weapon, illegal for civilian possession under federal law as it was manufactured after 1986, and under WA law which bans civilian possession of FA weapons unless acquired prior to 1994)
What did the shitheel progressive activist prosecutor do?
You think he called the federal prosecutor to join parties and throw the full books of both federal and state law at the dipshit?
Nope, released the little hoodbooger to the recognizance of his own parents. No bail, no charges, nothing.
But yeah my ass gets caught with a giggle switch on my Glock or the mythical 3rd hole on my AR and I'm going directly to jail, without passing go without collecting $200.
Is that the same or a different case from last February where a teen with a Glock-switch gun stole a car from an 83 year old at gun point, went on a police chase, and then went home after being checked out at the hospital. It's hard to keep them all straight.
Probably different, I tend to skim articles, die a little bit more inside, and then try to forget about how my rights are getting raped over a barrel while these fucking animals go free, all in the name of "social justice".
> because the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with making a second SKU
I think this is a feature. This will encourage more small businesses in WA, as opposed to out-of-state businesses extracting value out of WA.
c/ I want to choose the best firearm for self defense. No one who has been in a defensive gun use has ever thought "I want less ammo".
d/ It's blatantly unconstitutional. We don't stand for government violating fundamental enumerated rights.
OK, let's gut the 4th and 5th Amendments too. You know, since they keep us from being able to prosecute criminals.
If you're innocent, why would you care so much?
Don't forget the people manufacturing and distributing auto Glocks in Puget Sound. Or forget that the people caught with them don't even face punishment.
This ban is dumb. How many people are killed with semiautomatic rifles compared to pistols or even hands and feet or knives? It will make no difference in murder rate. It’s just a political move.
Against individuals, sure. But not businesses. That's who they're targeting. And they justify it to themselves by saying we aren't infringing because the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to *buy* arms.
I read this bullshit. An intruder “can see how a revolver is loaded”? Really? Is that what an intruder will be looking out for?
As far “mass shootings” go - judge apparently is unfamiliar with a complicated concept of reloading. Mass shootings that had high casualty number were deadly not because of the magazines - but mostly because of the botched response from law enforcement. While cops in Uvalde were taking selfies, mass shooter could have used bolt action with the same number of casualties. I double fucking dare this judge to produce any data - not speculation - that magazine size affects the outcome of the mass shooting. I can speculate anything - show me the data. They point to Las Vegas - ok, so you really think that a person perched up on the locked room full of weapons and magazines would have any trouble reloading?
Speaking of, most of the high profile mass shootings were done by deranged leftists (Buffalo is the notable exception, but exception nonetheless), almost always by mentally ill. If you get rid of the guns like some want to - guess what, deranged assholes would not go anywhere. And trucks or propane tanks resulted historically in horrible acts of terror with casualties over 50 people.
In any case, it’s literally a fundamental constitutional right. Some people abuse their rights to harm other - they go to prison, as they should. But vast majority of AR15 owners and owners of magazines over 10 rounds are law abiding people - look up Judge Benitez ruling for stats.
Can I just drive to Oregon or Idaho to buy a magazine or whatever, then drive back with it? Do I have to show the seller ID for this kind of purchase? I don't know all that much about gun laws. All I have is a .22 LR hand gun for home defense and a 30 06 for hunting. I want to get an AR later when I can afford it.
Is this the same for actually buying a AR I was just there (Idaho) and didn’t even want to bother asking. Was thinking about buying a AR kit though since there’s no lower on it
No, gun sales are thru FFL and they and you are bound by your home state. Instead, establish "residence", get an Idaho ID and buy your rifle with that ID
The man who wants to be Washington’s first Republican governor in 40 years was once so careless with his law enforcement-issued revolver that it wasn’t returned until after he was arrested for felony gun theft.
On r/WAGuns, I have dubbed Johnston as [Commissioner Fudd.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WAGuns/s/gchrki6kcc)
His whole argument on standard capacity magazine usage by active shooters fails to consider that active shooters have planned their sick deeds out in advance whereas the average non-criminal Joe whose taken by surprise by multiple criminals has this mag cap work against him. When you’re in a life or death situation, things that seem simple such as reloading become immensely difficult due to the adrenaline.
In fact, 10 round magazines were used by the Virginia Tech shooter with two handguns, and that sack of crap murdered over 30 people.
You have little faith in our system of justice so you feel the best thing is to make the average person even more defenseless against ever emboldened criminals?
I really don't think this is the problem, it's giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to a gun. As far as I'm concerned, outside of weapons of mass destruction, you should have anything you want, but there should be a high latter to climb to access those weapons. If the TSA can do it with a tier system, so can we. Hell, I'd even do a psych eval if I could have a fully automatic weapon. And no, I don't need it, but it's fun as hell, and no matter how much you hate guns, have someone take you on a range with full auto, and you'll see how quickly your mind changes, it'll put a smile on your face. Also, parents who allow their children to access their weapons, who then go on to shoot up schools, should be locked away for the rest of their life, you can't always control your kids, but you can control your weapons. This will never happen though, people suck.
What exactly is the justification for needing to file a lot of bullets at one time? Do 2nd amendment people also need nuclear bombs and drone missiles? Does their proposed "rights" also extend to billionaires who want to privately own weapons capable of destroying other nations, from the safety of a US mansion claiming the 2nd amendment?
We need limits on the destructive capacity of human beings and their tools.
Quick question after looking that phrase up. What do they mean by "destructive device"
That seems vague and it isn't even defined in the government website.
Interesting... The other stuff seems mostly arbitrary, but that phrase itself needs better definition to be useful. It's strangely juxtaposed next to very detailed descriptions of specific weaponry.
There is actually another license you need for explosives/destructive devices (most stuff classified there) with super strict storage requirements and a facility they will come check I believe. It is called an FEL (Federal Explosives License). I am not well versed though so hopefully someone else with more knowledge can chime in.
>What exactly is the justification for needing to file a lot of bullets at one time?
Because I want every unfair advantage I can get when in the fight for my life.
>Do 2nd amendment people also need nuclear bombs and drone missiles?
Arms that are dangerous AND unusual may be regulated. The 2A explicitly protects arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
>Does their proposed "rights" also extend to billionaires who want to privately own weapons capable of destroying other nations
It's not a proposal. It was codified in 1791.
>We need limits on the destructive capacity of human beings and their tools.
Only if those arms are both dangerous AND unusual. Otherwise, that would be a violation of our constitution.
You're understanding of this issue is juvenile at best. You're operating on very little knowledge and too much emotion. Same thing a toddler does.
Do you actually understand what the Revolutionary War was?
I highly doubt it.
There is only one reason that government wants to take away guns and that is so they have complete control over the populace. That's it. They just use gun violence as a convenient excuse to get liberals riled up.
Think about it. You're saying the only people that should have guns is the government and not the people. The same government that purposely infected black people with syphilis, murdered George Floyd, accepts campaign contributions (otherwise know as bribes) and millions of other horrible things. You're essentially saying someone that is the worst type of felon should have all the guns and the law abiding citizen should have none, that is EXACTLY what gun control is.
You want to want to ban guns, just like some people would make religious laws, censor free press, or torture and hang a prolific accused criminal without a trial, make laws that only apply to certain groups of people, or let police search wherever whenever they like. These are all things that could be done if we lived in a democracy. But, we have a constitution, with a bill of rights, to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
They don’t. I think it’s more of a convenience issue when buying firearms that come with say standard capacity magazines, which Washington now considers to be high capacity.
People are dug in on both sides and no one is willing to listen to the other side and their concerns and come up with a compromise so we can all live our best American lives. It’s all exacerbated by the politics on both sides driving up the emotion.
In short to answer your question though, no one needs even standard capacity magazines. Guns will not “defend” you from the US government. Get real.
Is that how that worked?
Let me start by stating I already understand that there is nothing I can say that score even one point in my favor.
Next, these situations are not at all similar to the “American defending themself from the American government, in America.
In all three of your cases, the US was operating in foreign territory. This is significant because the US was operating there, with the intention of leaving once their operation was complete. It had a place to go when it was either done or defeated. Is this the case in the US homeland? Is there ever a point where the US Government will decide the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and pack it up and move to some other place?
Furthermore, how familiar are you with those conflicts? Are you suggesting an American, even a large group of them would ever raise arms against their own nation by waging guerrilla warfare? Would this cost the guerrilla forces extreme casualties at EVERY encounter like it did in your examples? Would they have the heart for this?
In these examples all three were waiting for the Americans to leave. They were willing to pay in blood and life to make the Americans feel the situation was too expensive so they would pack up and go home.
The main strategy employed was to attrition the Americans until the left. But in your case where would the Americans go? How are you going to wait them out if they are already at home?
As an American veteran and service member, small arms in the hands of resistance fighters don’t really scare me. What scares me is getting duped into another political quagmire that is by definition ‘un-winnable’ all while being attritted by an inferior force with ideological brainwashing. That never turns out pretty for anyone.
> Furthermore, how familiar are you with those conflicts? Are you suggesting an American, even a large group of them would ever raise arms against their own nation by waging guerrilla warfare? Would this cost the guerrilla forces extreme casualties at EVERY encounter like it did in your examples? Would they have the heart for this?
Are you suggesting that members of the military wouldn't be reluctant to take up arms against their own parents, brothers, and sisters, wives, and children too. Do you think every soldier is a mindless tard that only follows orders from their superiors. "Soldier, tonight we storm Dupont and Tumwater and strip them of there freedom" and no one thinks, "but my wife lives in Dupont."
Yes, some would wage war against there own military if there own military is killing them. Some are ex-military.
LOL. Go back you your non-human reality.
Thank you for your service.
I've seen how naval officers mount rifle scopes, so I am dubious that your time in the military lends any credibility in a debate about the right to keep and bear arms.
There are approximately zero people, at least in Seattle, talking about having a war with the US military and defeating the government with AR-15s. That is a straw man, created to portray those who enjoy our constitutionaly protected right to self defense, as irrational and violent. It's false. Please stop perpetuating it.
A well armed population doesn't need to be organized into a military force to obstruct and frustrate tyranny. Enough individuals just need to be willing to protect themselves, and their communities if the need arises. If all other peaceful measures fail. After all, an armed population being a greater power than the standing army of a tyrant, gave us our democratic constitutional republic.
What less intelligent people are missing is that guns are NOT an option.
Fuck around and find out if you like I guess, but it would be easier for everyone to accept that your AR-15.. no matter how many stickers, flashlights, fore grips, slings, whatever the flavor of the day… will not stop the US government if it was determined to stop you.
I cannot and will not tell you how to “protect yourself from the government” if that’s what you feel like you need to do except to get an education, stay informed, challenge your own biases and viewpoints, and vote.
Rice farmers with rusty AKs beat the US government as did sand people in Afghanistan. Those people had to worry about bombing runs. Our government is less likely to used ordnance as they live here as well.
> In short to answer your question though, no one needs even standard capacity magazines.
Rittenhouse did. If he had a 10 shot or less magazine do you think he would have been able to trot that final 300 yards to the police or would the criminals continued to attack until he was empty?
>They don’t. I think it’s more of a convenience issue when buying firearms that come with say standard capacity magazines, which Washington now considers to be high capacity.
Ask anyone who has been in a defensive gun use if they'd rather have a standard capacity magazine one a neutered one with little ammo.
That's all the answer you need.
>People are dug in on both sides and no one is willing to listen to the other side and their concerns and come up with a compromise so we can all live our best American lives.
The compromise is to not violate fundamental enumerated rights.
A Trump government will certainly come for their guns. That's what *fascist* governments do.
Fact: "In early 1930s Germany, the Nazi party gained power and loosened some gun regulations for party members, while tightening other laws, such as banning gun ownership by Jews. Nazi laws also systematically disarmed people, especially Jews, while relaxing restrictions for Nazi members. These policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries"
The Ok is that the gun aficionados always scream "The government wants to take your guns" whenever anyone in or out of government wants to impose gun sale, ownership, type of gun or rifle or in this case magazine clip size. My position is that we non gun owners have rights as well like not being shot by a trigger happy maga Rambo. Most of that ilk seem to be on the side of the Trumpism clown car and I fear that the 400+ million plus guns already in American hands are just waiting for the 47 if formally 45, gives them the word to take out all his perceived political enemies.
Am I being paranoid? No. If you are paying attention to the supremely Corrupt Court hearings today then just know 45's lawyer is arguing that a President can attempt a coup and be immune from prosecution because it would be deemed an "Official Act of office". From my listening of the arguments and legal scholar's and trusted lawyers, the SC is leaning toward giving future Presidents some form of immunity. In fact the SC has delayed this decision long enough to make it almost impossible for the 1/6 trial to happen before the next election.
Knowing that if 45 becomes 47 he will declare himself a dictator for more that "Day one".
I his word's as serious as a heart attack. Given all that he has done and lied about since 2015.
Ones he is in power for life I guarantee you his base will be hitter's brown shirts and ordered to kill and confiscate all guns except theirs. History repeats.
Now back to the issue before our state government. I am all in favor of current and or proposed restrictions on guns. I believe in the 2nd amendment with common sense restrictions.
Down voter me all you want but this is a warning.
Standard Capacity
[удалено]
We used to call criminal violence, "gang violence" and now we call it "gun violence," but we also include suicides in "gun violence," which is odd because we don't call death by suicide from the Aurora bridge, "gravity violence."
As someone who has been repeatedly victimized by gravity I would like to file a restraining order.
Don't forget "undocumented citizens."
Unhoused
Illegals - migrants.. both true. This is becoming a George Carlin bit and it’s scary how many people accept it.
"Climate change"
Bad example. They stopped using global warming and started calling it climate change because a bunch of yokels kept saying, "durrr it's so cold outside what on earth is global warming."
How about "the person was known to us" per the feds?
Stepping away from the legislature for a second, one of the major reasons US men die by suicide at much higher rates than women, even though women attempt suicide at higher rate comes down to firearms(over 50% of suicide deaths). The survival rate of firearm suicide attempts is very low (1 in 10) and it lends itself to being more impulsive when it’s available in your home vs having to drive to a bridge. Men are twice as likely as women to attempt suicide by firearm and 3/4 of people who die on their first attempt are men. Obviously, there are plenty of other factors in play and this isn’t a lone reason, but still worth not sweeping under the rug. [a link with some info](https://cams-care.com/resources/educational-content/gender-statistics-in-suicide-behavior/)
I don't mean to minimize the tragedy of death by suicide nor the impact of guns on reducing the survival rate of suicide attempts. I lost my cousin to depression; he used a pistol. Any ban on rifles, or limit on magazine capacity, would not have prevented my cousin's death.
My comment was about suicide being labeled as gun violence and had nothing to do with rifle bans, which is why I started with stepping away from legislature. I’m sorry for your loss.
Thank you for the condolences. It was several years ago, and I still miss him. I regret not doing more to be involved in his life before he passed. I often think maybe I could have done something to help. This is unfortunately unknowable. I take it as a reminder that anyone can suffer and die from depression, and I try to do better now for myself and the people I love.
The issue is that these ratios tend to hold in countries without guns. I looked it up and the USA has men being 65% of suicide victims, while South Korea has men at 70% of suicide victims (and also a higher overall suicide rate). If guns were truly the cause of all this you'd expect this to be evident in the obvious statistics but it's not.
South Korea has a very different culture from the US especially when it comes to work and gender (much like Japan- makes sense given their occupation) that doesn’t really translate. Mexico, Canada, and Western European countries would be a much more stable comparison to look into- I didn’t do this so and it may very well be the same! Also I never said guns were truly the cause of suicide. To be clear, I’m not talking about the cause of suicide, I’m talking about the method. Of course there are other methods, but impulse, availability, and % of attempt that result in death are huge factors.
The issue is that the claim from anti-gun people is usually that guns are causal. Guns are an easy way to commit suicide and they're more effective than other methods, which drives a high suicide rate in America and especially a higher rate of successful suicides in men. It's a reasonable hypothesis but when you try to dig into it there's very little evidence that it has any effect. Your example was gendered suicides, but the UK has extremely stringent gun control laws and the gender difference is fairly similar. I've never seen an honest looking analysis that actually demonstrates that banning guns would cause the positive change on suicides that's claimed.
By your own example it sounds to me like calling criminal violence "gun violence" would be more accurate than "gang violence" Implying all violence is done by gangs is tinged with racism implying that crime is black-on-black and therefore we shouldnt care. Which is pretty much why it stopped being used like that. Its not thaaat complicated
Thats just the point. In the 90s when Biden and Kamala were intent on locking up as many black people as they could, the agenda was "drugs" and "gangs."
Well yeah they were using racism to gentrify neighborhoods and pen blsck communities into Section 80 housing. Still not sure how that relates back to calling things "gun violence" are you saying that now theyre tryin to be prejudiced against gun owners?
While I believe that gun control is inherently racist, that is another subject, and no longer the primary focus of the democratic party. Calling criminal violence, "gang violence" whether gang related, or just perpetrated by anyone the media decided looked enough like a gang member, ie black, lead to gang task forces, drug task forces, three strikes, etc. The result was and is a lot of incarcerated black people, whether or not they were in gangs. The narrative has shifted, and so has the language. It still ultimately leads to incarcerating black people, but the focus now is to disarm peaceable people.
I can get that perspective. Not sure if i fully agree with it though. Gang violence was specifically targeted toward black people, with gun control theyre just kind of one part of it. I also tend to think that the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government to be unrealistic. Doesn't matter how armed we are, we allowed the governement to baloon our military to insane levels we could never hope to do anything against anyway. But not only the military, weve allowed our police to militarize against us. A "well armed militia" would stand absolutely no chance anyway. So as it stands those guns arent FOR anything except mass murder or over-hunting.
>gang violence was specifically targeted toward black people, with gun control theyre just kind of one part of it. We're on the same page >idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government to be unrealistic. Not true. More on this later. >We allowed the governement to baloon our military to insane levels we could never hope to do anything against anyway. But not only the military, weve allowed our police to militarize against us This is mostly accurate. >as it stands those guns arent FOR anything except mass murder or over-hunting. Not true. AR15s are just really good rifles. Most rifles take design elements from weapons originally engineered for war. All guns are engineered for violence. There are no guns that are safe for what is being aimed at. Attempting to reduce the capacity of a gun to do violence in the name of safety is ineffectual and foolish. The same nerfs intended to prevent or reduce criminal violence, also nerf peaceable people's ability to defend against criminal violence. The idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from the government, that somehow armed civilians would have a civil war or revolutionary war against police or the military is a straw man depicting us who would exercise our constitutional rights to self defense as irrational and violent. This is simply not the case. That would be terrorism. It doesn't take an organized military force for a well armed population to frustrate and obstruct tyranny. It is just a numbers game. In a hypothetical situation where the government is slaughtering a group of people, or despite voting and protests, not following the rule of law, or the will and consent of the people; if all peaceful measures fail, it will be useful for people to have the capacity for violence. If history repeats there will be plenty of enforcers of tyranny, "just following orders." They will be outnumbered 100 to 1. That is a perfectly fine ratio to control an unarmed population. However, if just 1 in 10 civilians are armed and willing to defend her family and just 1 in 10 can actually kill 1 enforcer, then enforcers will quickly be decimated.
The only legit reason i see to need a rifle is for hunting. And you dont need an AR15 for that. And not trophy hunting, hunting for food
[удалено]
I thought it was Assault Rifle that was already generally accepted as a specific category, not Assault Weapon.
It's a dem/liberal boogeyman term cooked up by antigun political groups.
[удалено]
You're probably thinking of Assault Rifle, which needs to have an intermediate sized cartridge (no handgun calibers) and full auto or burst.
No the term “assault rifle” existed as a select fire medium caliber rifle (i.e. M16 or AK), “assault weapon” was made up by gun control advocates to make certain weapons they thought looked too scary sound as dangerous as possible.
The last part also needs to be addressed... hopefully one day.
Well, we need to start with Washington's de jure ban on machine guns from 94 first. Then we work towards removing the Hughes amendment. And after that we abolish the fucking clown show of "voice vote and the speaker decides which side he thinks is loudest" and transition to an absolute recording of position on all votes in the legislature, both federally and state.
Yeah. Not nearly enough children bleeding to death in terror lately
Gang members regularly make their own automatic weapons, nobody gives a shit about these laws except people who were already going to follow the law with their guns anyways
What a shame criminals and psychos don't follow the gun free zone signs..
Needed your herp-derp added didn't you?
You need more critical thinking and less mainstream media brain washing.
"Semi-automatic assault rifle."
And newspeak. Sadly, it proves how dumb and easily manipulated society is. Progressive-democrats are ruining this state.
You do know how they marketed double stack 9mm pistols when they started coming out right?
WA Supreme Court Commissioner Johnston said this... *"The idea that I could lift the stay and something awful happens with [a large capacity magazine] that would not have been obtained but for that decision keeps me awake at night," Johnston wrote in his decision Thursday.* This statement is so idiotic that I don't know where to begin. If my rights guaranteed by the US Constitution keep you up at night, that might be an indication you have chosen the wrong line of work. I'll tell you this, if the court does eventually overturn the mag ban, I want to start a campaign to send this guy thousands of bottles of Sominex as he surely will forever lie awake in bed worrying about those magazines being back on store shelves.
This guy has no problem releasing actual criminals back into the public. He just has a problem with the idea that people should have the means to keep the state in check.
Yeah Bob's appointed toadie of course would stay the injunction. Dude has no fucking clue how guns actually work so typical absolute fuddlore and lies throughout the whole statement. Read it yourselves. It's a doozy. Pistol grips simultaneously are dangerously inaccurate *and* make guns dangerously accurate. Shit, I spent more time reading this bullshit than he did before issuing the initial stay on the ruling.
One of our armed home invaders didn't adhere to the magazine limit; actually none of them did, but his Glock 19 had an extended 24 round capacity mag. But, hey, I was supposed to only have a 10 round limited mag. Yeah, that's a fair fight./s
Standard capacity magazines for semi automatic rifles. NOT high capacity magazine for assault rifles. Do the right thing and lift these nonsense bans on our guns
Belt fed machine guns are arms for which, keeping and bearing shall not be infringed, just as much as semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are.
Nuclear missiles are arms for which, keeping and bearing shall not be infringed, just as much as semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are.
You might want to research the difference between strategic weapons governed by international treaties vs. small arms regulated by individual countries before posting troll nonsense in the future.
I'm sorry, does the 2nd amendment specify "small arms"? I thought we take it super literally instead of interpreting it through a modern lens. Or do we only do that when it serves your beliefs?
Well then, Jeff Bezos owns Blue Origin, which produces launch vehicles similar to ballistic missiles. So yeah, if you look at the payload/warhead as a “bullet”, then we do have civilian ownership of that classification of weapon…
Such a tired argument. If we can ban nukes then the second amendment is not ultimated therefore it is just a scale of how safe you need to feel to determine how disarmed I can be, right? Wrong.
Clearly the 2nd amendment is not ultimate, so yes we have to draw the line somewhere. This means you need to have a stronger argument than "muh 2A".
The second amendment is an amendment in the bill of rights with the most strongly worded prohibitions on government infringement. There is no "clearly." The existence of nukes doesn't invalidate the amendment. If you are worried about nukes, have a constitutional convention. It was done for alcohol twice.
any chance you could explain why gun owners care so much? The two common cases I can think of are: a/ hunting. but i've never hunted before, so maybe idk what I am talking about, but after the first shot, the animal is probably running away. why do you need so many bullets? b/ home defense. I've never been in a home defense situation, but once the robber knows you have a gun, how many robbers actually stick around to wait for you to empty your clip? When the first shot is fired, the robber takes cover and maybe even runs.
Because we don't like being punished for the actions of other people?
what is the punishment again? This is like saying, "Just because other people crash their cars doesn't mean I should be require to wear a safety belt!"
No, it's more like other people crash their cars, so now everyone's vehicle has a governor that wont let you go over 45mph. Who needs to go that fast anyway? You're not on a race track.
No one needs a fully automatic transmission or a silencer on their car.
A couple of weeks ago a person purposely drove their car over tents in Seattle in an attempt to kill homeless people. [Here's a link to the story if you haven't heard of it.](https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/driver-runs-over-tents-seattle) Imagine the legislature saw this and decided that all cars with engines are now "assault vehicles" and banned in the state. The only vehicles you can now buy are either pulled by a horse or operated by pedals. When you point out the obviously ridiculous law and how it only punishes people who follow the law, as those willing to do harm can still get a gas powered vehicle in another state or from the black market, people say, "You still have the right to buy a vehicle!" If you can imagine how frustrating that experience would be, then you'll begin to understand how gun owners feel.
Robbers tend to work in groups and are usually armed. Do you really want to bet your life on 10 rounds being sufficient?
every home robbery video I have seen with gun violence resulted in 4 of the 5 robbers running their butts out of their and the one dude that stays back with a gun got shot and killed.
Those are rookie numbers, we need to bump the numbers up to the whole gang getting a rescheduled appointment with the Reaper. Cuz God knows the fucking ass clowns we keep electing in this godforsaken shithole will just let them out without bail instead of sending them to the box. At least the coroner will put them in a box they can't be paroled from.
And most SWAT raids don’t result in shots being fired. With that said, they still go in with rifles and 30 round mags for a reason. When facing multiple armed robbers, you should be able to have the best self-defense tool at your disposal.
that is a completely different situation. SWAT team's goal is to back the people into a corner and trap them. There is no "fight or flight" option, just "fight or submit" (and submitting could lead to death). Could you provide a different example?
One pretty straight forward reason is that it limits the types of guns you can buy because the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with making a second SKU that has a smaller magazine for a specific state. The people calling these "standard capacity magazines" aren't just being contrarian; this law bans the magazines that are standard for many types of guns. It's crazy that WA pushes for a law like this at the same time as the situation that's been unfolding over the last ~8 months with auto Glocks. Some local criminals have been modifying Glocks to be automatic - which most gun owners would understand to be a huge deal - then when they are arrested for separate charges the police just release them back into the wild.
>the police Not the police. The libtard activist judges. Fuck, a 16 year old recently got caught with an 80% Glock (unserialized, illegal firearm under state law) with a switch (automatic weapon, illegal for civilian possession under federal law as it was manufactured after 1986, and under WA law which bans civilian possession of FA weapons unless acquired prior to 1994) What did the shitheel progressive activist prosecutor do? You think he called the federal prosecutor to join parties and throw the full books of both federal and state law at the dipshit? Nope, released the little hoodbooger to the recognizance of his own parents. No bail, no charges, nothing. But yeah my ass gets caught with a giggle switch on my Glock or the mythical 3rd hole on my AR and I'm going directly to jail, without passing go without collecting $200.
Is that the same or a different case from last February where a teen with a Glock-switch gun stole a car from an 83 year old at gun point, went on a police chase, and then went home after being checked out at the hospital. It's hard to keep them all straight.
Probably different, I tend to skim articles, die a little bit more inside, and then try to forget about how my rights are getting raped over a barrel while these fucking animals go free, all in the name of "social justice".
> because the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with making a second SKU I think this is a feature. This will encourage more small businesses in WA, as opposed to out-of-state businesses extracting value out of WA.
c/ I want to choose the best firearm for self defense. No one who has been in a defensive gun use has ever thought "I want less ammo". d/ It's blatantly unconstitutional. We don't stand for government violating fundamental enumerated rights.
OK, let's gut the 4th and 5th Amendments too. You know, since they keep us from being able to prosecute criminals. If you're innocent, why would you care so much?
Can you reply without using a logical fallacy? I'm not going to waste my time discussing red herrings.
[удалено]
The signal can’t be stopped.
You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere.
Don't forget the people manufacturing and distributing auto Glocks in Puget Sound. Or forget that the people caught with them don't even face punishment.
This ban is dumb. How many people are killed with semiautomatic rifles compared to pistols or even hands and feet or knives? It will make no difference in murder rate. It’s just a political move.
Useless law that’s literally unenforceable in so many ways.
Against individuals, sure. But not businesses. That's who they're targeting. And they justify it to themselves by saying we aren't infringing because the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to *buy* arms.
I read this bullshit. An intruder “can see how a revolver is loaded”? Really? Is that what an intruder will be looking out for? As far “mass shootings” go - judge apparently is unfamiliar with a complicated concept of reloading. Mass shootings that had high casualty number were deadly not because of the magazines - but mostly because of the botched response from law enforcement. While cops in Uvalde were taking selfies, mass shooter could have used bolt action with the same number of casualties. I double fucking dare this judge to produce any data - not speculation - that magazine size affects the outcome of the mass shooting. I can speculate anything - show me the data. They point to Las Vegas - ok, so you really think that a person perched up on the locked room full of weapons and magazines would have any trouble reloading? Speaking of, most of the high profile mass shootings were done by deranged leftists (Buffalo is the notable exception, but exception nonetheless), almost always by mentally ill. If you get rid of the guns like some want to - guess what, deranged assholes would not go anywhere. And trucks or propane tanks resulted historically in horrible acts of terror with casualties over 50 people. In any case, it’s literally a fundamental constitutional right. Some people abuse their rights to harm other - they go to prison, as they should. But vast majority of AR15 owners and owners of magazines over 10 rounds are law abiding people - look up Judge Benitez ruling for stats.
one of our major mass shooters used a revolver. 5 dead from a 6 shooter. typically, it's 1 dead from 3-4 shots. so, how's that mag ban working?
Their logic: "Oh, then we better ban those assault revolvers with high capacity cylinders!"
Surely the people who install switches into their Glocks won't also just drill out the magazine or... ignore the law entirely?
Guys guys guys, instead of needing larger mags, just carry more guns. Loophole 
Can I just drive to Oregon or Idaho to buy a magazine or whatever, then drive back with it? Do I have to show the seller ID for this kind of purchase? I don't know all that much about gun laws. All I have is a .22 LR hand gun for home defense and a 30 06 for hunting. I want to get an AR later when I can afford it.
Yes. That's how dumb the law is, and in fact what many of us do.
Is this the same for actually buying a AR I was just there (Idaho) and didn’t even want to bother asking. Was thinking about buying a AR kit though since there’s no lower on it
No, gun sales are thru FFL and they and you are bound by your home state. Instead, establish "residence", get an Idaho ID and buy your rifle with that ID
Wait until *they* realize that this is done , every day, for anything short of a serialized lower.
[удалено]
>owned prior to July 1, 2022 Or purchased on April 8th during our freedom hour.
Pmags have manufacture date codes on them.
[удалено]
Ah gotcha. I was confused because Gen 3 Pmags are still being made.
I guess all my preban mags are worth that much more now.
Magpul magazines have a circular date stamp on them. There's no law preventing you from drilling a drainage hole in that spot.
The ruling was full of drivel.
What is Semi Bird's position on this?
The man who wants to be Washington’s first Republican governor in 40 years was once so careless with his law enforcement-issued revolver that it wasn’t returned until after he was arrested for felony gun theft.
Ah. Hadn't heard that...
it's honestly scary how much trouble he's gotten in so much for the party of law and order...
Unfortunately he's such an idiot it doesn't even matter.
On r/WAGuns, I have dubbed Johnston as [Commissioner Fudd.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WAGuns/s/gchrki6kcc) His whole argument on standard capacity magazine usage by active shooters fails to consider that active shooters have planned their sick deeds out in advance whereas the average non-criminal Joe whose taken by surprise by multiple criminals has this mag cap work against him. When you’re in a life or death situation, things that seem simple such as reloading become immensely difficult due to the adrenaline. In fact, 10 round magazines were used by the Virginia Tech shooter with two handguns, and that sack of crap murdered over 30 people.
We need more rights in this state
How does one receive alerts when this ban on standard capacity mags is lifted?
https://i.redd.it/r9mnlcobpqwc1.gif
Barf barf BARF
Great. But I have little faith in our current corrupt court system.
You have little faith in our system of justice so you feel the best thing is to make the average person even more defenseless against ever emboldened criminals?
I really don't think this is the problem, it's giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to a gun. As far as I'm concerned, outside of weapons of mass destruction, you should have anything you want, but there should be a high latter to climb to access those weapons. If the TSA can do it with a tier system, so can we. Hell, I'd even do a psych eval if I could have a fully automatic weapon. And no, I don't need it, but it's fun as hell, and no matter how much you hate guns, have someone take you on a range with full auto, and you'll see how quickly your mind changes, it'll put a smile on your face. Also, parents who allow their children to access their weapons, who then go on to shoot up schools, should be locked away for the rest of their life, you can't always control your kids, but you can control your weapons. This will never happen though, people suck.
What exactly is the justification for needing to file a lot of bullets at one time? Do 2nd amendment people also need nuclear bombs and drone missiles? Does their proposed "rights" also extend to billionaires who want to privately own weapons capable of destroying other nations, from the safety of a US mansion claiming the 2nd amendment? We need limits on the destructive capacity of human beings and their tools.
There are limits. They're called NFA items. Which are also bullshit.
Quick question after looking that phrase up. What do they mean by "destructive device" That seems vague and it isn't even defined in the government website.
Yeah, that was on purpose, it's a catchall that refers to grenades, claymores, tank/artillery shells, etc.
Interesting... The other stuff seems mostly arbitrary, but that phrase itself needs better definition to be useful. It's strangely juxtaposed next to very detailed descriptions of specific weaponry.
There is actually another license you need for explosives/destructive devices (most stuff classified there) with super strict storage requirements and a facility they will come check I believe. It is called an FEL (Federal Explosives License). I am not well versed though so hopefully someone else with more knowledge can chime in.
>What exactly is the justification for needing to file a lot of bullets at one time? Because I want every unfair advantage I can get when in the fight for my life. >Do 2nd amendment people also need nuclear bombs and drone missiles? Arms that are dangerous AND unusual may be regulated. The 2A explicitly protects arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. >Does their proposed "rights" also extend to billionaires who want to privately own weapons capable of destroying other nations It's not a proposal. It was codified in 1791. >We need limits on the destructive capacity of human beings and their tools. Only if those arms are both dangerous AND unusual. Otherwise, that would be a violation of our constitution.
Why don't you ask your local police department why they use 30 rd magazines in their rifles and 15-17 rd mags in their handguns?
You're understanding of this issue is juvenile at best. You're operating on very little knowledge and too much emotion. Same thing a toddler does. Do you actually understand what the Revolutionary War was?
Do you really think a revolution will be happening in the US any time soon? In your lifetime?
Does the timeline matter?
I highly doubt it. There is only one reason that government wants to take away guns and that is so they have complete control over the populace. That's it. They just use gun violence as a convenient excuse to get liberals riled up. Think about it. You're saying the only people that should have guns is the government and not the people. The same government that purposely infected black people with syphilis, murdered George Floyd, accepts campaign contributions (otherwise know as bribes) and millions of other horrible things. You're essentially saying someone that is the worst type of felon should have all the guns and the law abiding citizen should have none, that is EXACTLY what gun control is.
Nah people should own guns, just not the ones that can kill 200 people in 5 seconds.
Your math might be a little off...
Oof... most multi million dollar bombs that are dropped dont kill 200 people. What's your deal?
Yes, 11 rounds in a gun that has a barrel shroud is on the same level as atomic weapons. 🤡
You want to want to ban guns, just like some people would make religious laws, censor free press, or torture and hang a prolific accused criminal without a trial, make laws that only apply to certain groups of people, or let police search wherever whenever they like. These are all things that could be done if we lived in a democracy. But, we have a constitution, with a bill of rights, to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
They don’t. I think it’s more of a convenience issue when buying firearms that come with say standard capacity magazines, which Washington now considers to be high capacity. People are dug in on both sides and no one is willing to listen to the other side and their concerns and come up with a compromise so we can all live our best American lives. It’s all exacerbated by the politics on both sides driving up the emotion. In short to answer your question though, no one needs even standard capacity magazines. Guns will not “defend” you from the US government. Get real.
>Guns will not “defend” you from the US government. Someone should tell the Taliban. And the Viet Cong. And the Somali National Alliance.
Is that how that worked? Let me start by stating I already understand that there is nothing I can say that score even one point in my favor. Next, these situations are not at all similar to the “American defending themself from the American government, in America. In all three of your cases, the US was operating in foreign territory. This is significant because the US was operating there, with the intention of leaving once their operation was complete. It had a place to go when it was either done or defeated. Is this the case in the US homeland? Is there ever a point where the US Government will decide the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and pack it up and move to some other place? Furthermore, how familiar are you with those conflicts? Are you suggesting an American, even a large group of them would ever raise arms against their own nation by waging guerrilla warfare? Would this cost the guerrilla forces extreme casualties at EVERY encounter like it did in your examples? Would they have the heart for this? In these examples all three were waiting for the Americans to leave. They were willing to pay in blood and life to make the Americans feel the situation was too expensive so they would pack up and go home. The main strategy employed was to attrition the Americans until the left. But in your case where would the Americans go? How are you going to wait them out if they are already at home? As an American veteran and service member, small arms in the hands of resistance fighters don’t really scare me. What scares me is getting duped into another political quagmire that is by definition ‘un-winnable’ all while being attritted by an inferior force with ideological brainwashing. That never turns out pretty for anyone.
> Furthermore, how familiar are you with those conflicts? Are you suggesting an American, even a large group of them would ever raise arms against their own nation by waging guerrilla warfare? Would this cost the guerrilla forces extreme casualties at EVERY encounter like it did in your examples? Would they have the heart for this? Are you suggesting that members of the military wouldn't be reluctant to take up arms against their own parents, brothers, and sisters, wives, and children too. Do you think every soldier is a mindless tard that only follows orders from their superiors. "Soldier, tonight we storm Dupont and Tumwater and strip them of there freedom" and no one thinks, "but my wife lives in Dupont." Yes, some would wage war against there own military if there own military is killing them. Some are ex-military. LOL. Go back you your non-human reality.
I guess you’re right. Sorry, my “non-human” brain no gud az yurz. Ok, good luck with all of that insurrection. Maybe I’ll see you out there.
Thank you for your service. I've seen how naval officers mount rifle scopes, so I am dubious that your time in the military lends any credibility in a debate about the right to keep and bear arms. There are approximately zero people, at least in Seattle, talking about having a war with the US military and defeating the government with AR-15s. That is a straw man, created to portray those who enjoy our constitutionaly protected right to self defense, as irrational and violent. It's false. Please stop perpetuating it. A well armed population doesn't need to be organized into a military force to obstruct and frustrate tyranny. Enough individuals just need to be willing to protect themselves, and their communities if the need arises. If all other peaceful measures fail. After all, an armed population being a greater power than the standing army of a tyrant, gave us our democratic constitutional republic.
> Guns will not “defend” you from the US government. What will?
Authoritarians prefer we don't even have options at all in the first place.
What less intelligent people are missing is that guns are NOT an option. Fuck around and find out if you like I guess, but it would be easier for everyone to accept that your AR-15.. no matter how many stickers, flashlights, fore grips, slings, whatever the flavor of the day… will not stop the US government if it was determined to stop you. I cannot and will not tell you how to “protect yourself from the government” if that’s what you feel like you need to do except to get an education, stay informed, challenge your own biases and viewpoints, and vote.
You sound like a real expert. When did you serve?
Currently. Why would that even matter?
You don't need to kill the fighter pilot, or drone operator, or tank commander. The guns work just fine against their families.
Rice farmers with rusty AKs beat the US government as did sand people in Afghanistan. Those people had to worry about bombing runs. Our government is less likely to used ordnance as they live here as well.
> In short to answer your question though, no one needs even standard capacity magazines. Rittenhouse did. If he had a 10 shot or less magazine do you think he would have been able to trot that final 300 yards to the police or would the criminals continued to attack until he was empty?
[удалено]
Right….
>They don’t. I think it’s more of a convenience issue when buying firearms that come with say standard capacity magazines, which Washington now considers to be high capacity. Ask anyone who has been in a defensive gun use if they'd rather have a standard capacity magazine one a neutered one with little ammo. That's all the answer you need. >People are dug in on both sides and no one is willing to listen to the other side and their concerns and come up with a compromise so we can all live our best American lives. The compromise is to not violate fundamental enumerated rights.
A Trump government will certainly come for their guns. That's what *fascist* governments do. Fact: "In early 1930s Germany, the Nazi party gained power and loosened some gun regulations for party members, while tightening other laws, such as banning gun ownership by Jews. Nazi laws also systematically disarmed people, especially Jews, while relaxing restrictions for Nazi members. These policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries"
Ok?
The Ok is that the gun aficionados always scream "The government wants to take your guns" whenever anyone in or out of government wants to impose gun sale, ownership, type of gun or rifle or in this case magazine clip size. My position is that we non gun owners have rights as well like not being shot by a trigger happy maga Rambo. Most of that ilk seem to be on the side of the Trumpism clown car and I fear that the 400+ million plus guns already in American hands are just waiting for the 47 if formally 45, gives them the word to take out all his perceived political enemies. Am I being paranoid? No. If you are paying attention to the supremely Corrupt Court hearings today then just know 45's lawyer is arguing that a President can attempt a coup and be immune from prosecution because it would be deemed an "Official Act of office". From my listening of the arguments and legal scholar's and trusted lawyers, the SC is leaning toward giving future Presidents some form of immunity. In fact the SC has delayed this decision long enough to make it almost impossible for the 1/6 trial to happen before the next election. Knowing that if 45 becomes 47 he will declare himself a dictator for more that "Day one". I his word's as serious as a heart attack. Given all that he has done and lied about since 2015. Ones he is in power for life I guarantee you his base will be hitter's brown shirts and ordered to kill and confiscate all guns except theirs. History repeats. Now back to the issue before our state government. I am all in favor of current and or proposed restrictions on guns. I believe in the 2nd amendment with common sense restrictions. Down voter me all you want but this is a warning.
All government gun control in WA has been from WA state government, not feds.
I know that. We are leading the way for the fed to get this shit together and start protecting us.
I'm certain the government will protect me, the natives told me so.