Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/1/2006 9:17:03 PM EDT
Our wonderful Western Washington (Puget Sound and Vancouver) legislators are at it AGAIN!! There are at least THREE bills to be concerned about when the Democrooks reconvene!! I simply did a search for "firearms" at the leg. site. Of particular concern are HB 1490, and SBs 5343 AND 5344. I have provided a link to the list of bills:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=firearms&year=2006

Of course, looking at the sponsors of these bills, they are the "usual suspects", most from the Seattle Metro area, but unfortunately one is co-sponsored by the Rep from my hometown (Vancouver) Jim Moeller!!

We have to stay vigilant!!
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:10:39 PM EDT
What a wonderful world it would be is we could all sing "I like to buy the world a coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony" but in fact the world is really hell and we are stuck here until we are dead and then it don't matter anymore.

The Lieberals/Libtards never did anything to you me or any other gun owner, it is high time for the warriors to awake, you know how silly it looks when the lions proink off with the rest of the sheep ? really stupid thats how !

The only threat to me is someone else with firearms that has a problem with me carrying firearms.

Got a clue yet ?


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. -- Noah Webster,
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:11:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:12:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
They never quit.



Neither do I MILITIA
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:25:52 PM EDT
Other than the usual risk of having the legislature totally mess things up, I don't get all the uproar over the state park bill. It does contain exemptions for hunting purposes, as well as exempting CPL holders from its prohibition. I think it is legislation that is not needed, but in the scheme of things, it seems pretty benign to me.....
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:32:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:
I think it is legislation that is not needed, but in the scheme of things, it seems pretty benign to me.....





Gun owners can be the second amendment's advocate own worste enemy, as we are all supposed to be on the same side, it doesn't work out that way if you appease the monster trying to murder you, you may be eaten last but the monster will still eat you.


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."-
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Member of the Constitutional Convention, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:14:54 PM EDT

I think it is legislation that is not needed


That's enough for me to resist it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 11:43:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 11:45:24 PM EDT by LawTalkingGuy]
Actually, I believe that is a list of bills introduced in the last legislative session. They should all have filing dates in Jan '05, or thereabouts. These died in committee in the last session. Pre-filed bills for the 2006 session are listed elsewhere.

Currently, among the prefiled bills, there are two of particular interest. One in the House would re-introduce bills from the previous legislative session automatically in the upcoming one. So, that list of bills, including a number of other gun un-friendly ones, would then be reintroduced.

The other is a Senate bill, introduced by Senator Stevens from the 39th legislative district (I think) that would amend and add some provisions to the justifiable homocide provisions of state law. From a quick reading it appears to be a bill worthy of support, reinforcing and enhancing our right of self defense and protection from prosecution.

Before long, a full list of bills for the session will be available, then we'll know what to gear up for battle against.

Then again, it's late at night in a long list of late at nights recently, I could be all wrong.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 1:07:27 PM EDT
I like this one.

Regulating the possesion of firearms on the State Capitol campus

Who are they afraid of?

Oh right, the people. The law abiding kind. Imagine that, our elected representative afraid of the people who elected them. How could that be?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:06:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XD_Fan:
I like this one.

Regulating the possesion of firearms on the State Capitol campus

Who are they afraid of?

Oh right, the people. The law abiding kind. Imagine that, our elected representative afraid of the people who elected them. How could that be?



Its unclear whether theyre really thinking beyond 'guns are bad'. Look at the SF HG ban. Those who proposed it admit they only wanted to 'raise awareness' and it was never intended to pass. Now, they're trying to figure out just how to impliment it. Its bad law and even those on the anti side agree (at least in private). I think the situation might not be so different here. They just can't get beyond their own talking pts.: 'guns are bad' and 'why would anyone need one'. If they're afraid of us (the law abiding) then why arent they also afraid of those criminals bent on committing crimes w/ guns? Do they lump us all into the same bucket? If the law abiding aren't allowed to carry then will criminals comply too out of good will?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:21:10 PM EDT
I was frankly a little surprised that this particular bill never got out of committee. Hopefully it, and it's brother anti bills, won't fair any better this year.

It is actually not the legislature that really scares me when it comes to an assault weapons ban type of bill. I am afraid that the great success of the anti-smoking initiative will cause the anti-gun types to try the initiative approach to gun control. Even some smokers voted for the anti-smoking law, will the strictly hunting gun owner types see a reason to oppose an ban on those "evil guns" that they wouldn't have anyway?

I'm sure the Brady Bunch, and other national organizations of their ilk, would be happy to send in the money sufficient to make sure it gets on the ballot and has a good chance of passage. What precentage of the voters in Washington own guns, particularly other than shotguns or hunting rifles? Like smoking, guns can be a knee jerk, highly emotional topic. Hopefully the NRA and other pro organizations with some deep pockets would step up and fight it.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 3:50:35 PM EDT
There's an idea, lets keep doing things the same old way with the same results and expect it to work in our favor over time, what is that the definition of ?

I say why I think the same strategy won't work in the future, after getting a initiative passed to reduce the vehicle tabs the legislature did a work around and still charged higher tax, so another initiative was passed that closed the loop-hole and force $30 tabs, now they have found another loop-hole and are charging more for tabs.

When it comes to the right to bear arms in one's own defense and land no law passed by man can infringe on that natural right, however they still pass laws codes restricting the means of self defense and criminals enforce those restrictions, no penalty exists for punishing corrupt legislators and law enforcement.

Any threat to the criminal state will be destroyed by the criminal state by reason of self defense of the criminal state with a power monopoly, and that was the main reason for the second amendment.

Not until the people, the ultimate authority start defending them selves from the criminal state will anything change for the better, there must be a penalty for crime and at present there is no penalty for treason and assault & plunder of the people by the State.



Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:08:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 4:10:27 PM EDT by LawTalkingGuy]
I was not suggesting an initiative to protect our rights and to force the government to do so also, but rather its use as a tool of the antis. As you say, the gov finds ways around them too easily, when they want to.

The problem is that the "majority" are sheeple that will probably never agree with us. I truly believe that someday "the people" will simply support a Constitutional amendment that will remove the Second from the Bill of Rights. Won't be soon, but it, along with a number of other similar amendments, will eventually happen, it's all a matter of timing and "packaging".

The amendment process is part of the Constitution, so what would pro-gun people do if the "majority" votes to take out the Second? You no longer have a Constitutional argument to make. Now we are simply down to "inalienable", but they didn't mention guns in that statement, although it wasn't a restrictive and all inclusive one, and is not as persuasive to many.

And frankly, though he wouldn't agree with it, I think Jefferson wouldn't be particularly surprised by it. I think he would be shocked that the Constitution has survived as long as it has, in its more or less original form.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:22:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LawTalkingGuy:
I was not suggesting an initiative to protect our rights and to force the government to do so also, but rather its use as a tool of the antis. As you say, the gov finds ways around them too easily, when they want to.

The problem is that the "majority" are sheeple that will probably never agree with us. I truly believe that someday "the people" will simply support a Constitutional amendment that will remove the Second from the Bill of Rights. Won't be soon, but it, along with a number of other similar amendments, will eventually happen, it's all a matter of timing and "packaging".

The amendment process is part of the Constitution, so what would pro-gun people do if the "majority" votes to take out the Second? You no longer have a Constitutional argument to make. Now we are simply down to "inalienable", but they didn't mention guns in that statement, although it wasn't a restrictive and all inclusive one, and is not as persuasive to many.

And frankly, though he wouldn't agree with it, I think Jefferson wouldn't be particularly surprised by it. I think he would be shocked that the Constitution has survived as long as it has, in its more or less original form.



Sometimes I wonder that if the founding fathers were alive today, who would they be pissed at. Would it be the politicians who have gradually enslaved us or would they be equally pissed at us for not standing up to these assholes! Just a thought to ponder!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:10:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RedDawg6:
Sometimes I wonder that if the founding fathers were alive today, who would they be pissed at. Would it be the politicians who have gradually enslaved us or would they be equally pissed at us for not standing up to these assholes! Just a thought to ponder!




A republic if you can keep it


The founders knew exactly what would happen with the CONstitution a facist federal contract that favors big government over the people, Rhode Island is the only state to vote on the adoption of the CONsitution, it failed with 84% of the people against it, so George Washington marched an army up there and made RI sign with the use of military force.

Government always seeks it's survival over that of the people, it seeks to increase it's power and size at the expense of the people, if you read what the anti-federalists wrote on the subject you can clearly read they knew exactly how damaging standing armies are to the people and their Life, Liberty and Property ! they suffered as no one has before or after the war for independence at the hands of their own government and standing armed services.

Right this very day the threat is not from the lone criminal but the corrupt criminal State, we can defend our selves against the common thief but how are we to defend our slves from the combined armed services and corrupt police ?


I have no problem with any man bearing arms, until he has a problem with me bearing arms, now we have problem.




Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:02:44 PM EDT
+1 Strat, thanks for the history lesson. Keep the powder dry dude!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:48:47 PM EDT
Sure they won't quit. And there are more of us.

I was looking at numbers and WAC membership dwarfs theirs. There are more people at a good Puyallup show weekend than CeaseFire claims as members!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:16:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 4:18:21 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]

Originally Posted By donbcivil:
Sure they won't quit. And there are more of us, if we organize

I was looking at numbers and WAC membership dwarfs theirs. There are more people at a good Puyallup show weekend than CeaseFire claims as members!


Thats true they are more gun owners that anti-gov communazis but gun owners can be the second amendment activists worst enemy, everyone needs to put severe pressure on reps and backed up by force, not i wont vote you next time bs.


Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --

Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

Top Top