Judge Sides with NRA, Disqualifies Washington Gun Control Initiative

[glowe]

Oh, I understand the state's unchallenged attempts to modify and eliminate 2nd Amendment protection by certain states. I can only hope we get a Supreme Court case soon.

I also totally support your position to vote for pro-gun candidates. To me, that is a given and with the help of the NRA, the candidates are reviewed across the country.

 

[345sire]

COULD be?!? I would say HAS BEEN.
The language of the 2nd clearly says SHALL not be INFRINGED (a.k.a. impaired, restricted, limited).
There are already something like 22 THOUSAND gun laws on the books that restrict, limit, impair or otherwise INFRINGE on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
The 2nd Amendment has already been legislatively and judicially interpreted as something different than what the founding fathers clearly intended.
The camel's nose is already in the tent - and most of the rest of the camel too IMO.

Those 22 thousand laws were likely passed by people using the phrase "if just one life is saved,". So we now have 22,000 more people still alive as a result? Yeah, uh-huh, right. How many good men and women died to preserve our Constitution? I've lost count, frankly.

 

[Andy Lowry]

It's because of just this sort of thing that I have a life membership in the SAF. They've done a lot of good work, and brought the McDonald case to the Supreme Court, which I see as a huge decision for gun ownership rights.

 

[Racer X]

There is only 1 thing to say to anyone about proposed new gun control laws.

If the goal is to save lives, then why is alcohol still being sold? It is NOT protected by law, and causes far more deaths directly and indirectly than firearms, so there is something else going on. Or pure ignorance and wishfull thinking.

I live in Seattle, and have yet to see a Pro I-1639 anything FWIW.

 

[zombie66]

There is only 1 thing to say to anyone about proposed new gun control laws.

If the goal is to save lives, then why is alcohol still being sold? It is NOT protected by law, and causes far more deaths directly and indirectly than firearms, so there is something else going on. Or pure ignorance and wishfull thinking.

I live in Seattle, and have yet to see a Pro I-1639 anything FWIW.

Im about 40 miles south of you and as previously stated I have yet to see a single Pro 1639 sign.... its eerie.

 

[stansdds]

There is only 1 thing to say to anyone about proposed new gun control laws.

If the goal is to save lives, then why is alcohol still being sold? It is NOT protected by law, and causes far more deaths directly and indirectly than firearms, so there is something else going on. Or pure ignorance and wishfull thinking.

I live in Seattle, and have yet to see a Pro I-1639 anything FWIW.

If the goal is to save lives, then why are cars, trucks, vans, and SUV's still being sold? More people have died in the U.S. from motor vehicle accidents than from gunshot wounds.

 

[345sire]

There is only 1 thing to say to anyone about proposed new gun control laws.

If the goal is to save lives, then why is alcohol still being sold? It is NOT protected by law, and causes far more deaths directly and indirectly than firearms, so there is something else going on. Or pure ignorance and wishfull thinking.

I live in Seattle, and have yet to see a Pro I-1639 anything FWIW.

They TRIED banning booze (Prohibition) and it failed to work. Guess Carrie Nation didn't think of the phrase "If just one life is saved,,,,,,,,," until the anti-booze people had moved onto other causes. She and her hatchet, remember?

Maybe follow the money? Lotsa moolah in the liquor industry. Perhaps a bullet tax would shut them up? Nah, didn't think so.

 

[BC38]

If the goal is to save lives, then why are cars, trucks, vans, and SUV's still being sold? More people have died in the U.S. from motor vehicle accidents than from gunshot wounds.

The difference is that EVERYONE uses motor vehicles and they are used for multiple beneficial things. Transporting people and goods are essential.

Unlike guns, which have only a few legitimate uses (self defense, hunting, sport) and are only used by a limited number of people. For the vast majority, none of these uses are essential.

Booze on the other hand has few beneficial uses - other than its relaxing and/or intoxicating effects - relative to the amount of damage it causes. There is nothing essential about its use - unless you are addicted to it.

So IMO the comparison between guns and alcohol is much more valid than the comparison between guns and vehicles.

 

[vytoland]

Join, Support, Contribute to the NRA.....

NRA = the BIG dog in our fight.....

 

[ladder13]

Alan Gottlieb does great work.

 

[Racer X]

There were some heinous mass killings in Asia done with knives in the recent past, but they don't get the coverage, because there is no upside to do that.

If someone wants to do a heinous deed, they will find a way. And common sense easily shows that a Marlin 60 isn't going to be the mode, but somehow, the idiots backing I-1639 are fearful of them for some idiotic reason.

 

[345sire]

There were some heinous mass killings in Asia done with knives in the recent past, but they don't get the coverage, because there is no upside to do that.

If someone wants to do a heinous deed, they will find a way. And common sense easily shows that a Marlin 60 isn't going to be the mode, but somehow, the idiots backing I-1639 are fearful of them for some idiotic reason.

A Dodge Ram 250 can/will harm more than a Marlin, how hard is it to get one?
Here in Jersey they claim driving is a "privilege", not a right. 2A says nationally the firearms are our "right". Go figure.

 

[runscott]

sorry, my post was just unnecessary venting.

 

[vt_shooter]

There is only 1 thing to say to anyone about proposed new gun control laws.

If the goal is to save lives, then why is alcohol still being sold? It is NOT protected by law, and causes far more deaths directly and indirectly than firearms, so there is something else going on. Or pure ignorance and wishfull thinking.

I live in Seattle, and have yet to see a Pro I-1639 anything FWIW.

... or , if their true rationale is to save lives, then why aren't they fighting tobacco, as that kills over 1,000 Americans every day? They love to cite numbers, and 1,000 a day could make for easy rhetoric to write for the daily "news" casts intended to engineer public opinion.

 

[stansdds]

Now that there is a federal tax on tobacco, congress has had little interest in further restrictions or punishment for producers of tobacco products. I'd wager that if there were federal taxes on firearms and ammo you would see law makers push a whole lot less for restrictions and bans.

 

[10ring]

You mean something like the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET), that was first imposed in 1919? The one that imposes a 10% tax on the sale price of pistols and revolvers and 11% of the sale price of other firearms and ammunition?

Sorry, but it really isn't about the money. At least not tax money.

 

[stansdds]

Just saying that when the federal government is getting tax dollars from the sale of something, they are not real keen on restricting or eliminating the sale of that item.