WA AWB more likely than Federal AWB

[Dave_pro2a]

IMHO, I think it's more likely WA passes a CA style AWB than the Feds.

Thoughts?

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Only if we sit on our butts. I have said it before, Citizenship is a Verb. Someone just verified that by hitting that last "community meeting against gun violence". He was the only Citizen to speak.

 

[FMCDH]

I think with organizations such as the Brady bunch throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, anything is possible, at any level.

 

[Freedom First]

IMHO, I think it's more likely WA passes a CA style AWB than the Feds.

Thoughts?

Who cares? This law or that law, State or fed, if the law is unconstitutional SHOULD WE OBEY IT?

I think we can beg and plead all we want. And waste valuable time doing do. These men and women who rule this nation have a plan and events have now made progress on that plan possible. They will move ahead regardless of the amount of irreplaceable life energy wasted by talking in the defense of the Rights we hold so dear. So, plan for their obvious laws and then actively choose whether or not you will obey them. Obedience to tyrannical government is a choice. When you are disarmed, you have no choice.

Petitioning the government for "redress of grievances" is not what I would call a functional approach today. Obedience to these laws only empower those who are exercising unconstitutional power today. In response to the threat of new illegal laws from DC, there are movements starting that will need the support of real men and women to succeed. Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers spoke up yesterday. He's taken a hard line on any further restrictions on 2A and I back him in this. So, the real question is, when men like Rhodes or Vanderboegh are facing .gov directly, potentially over the sights of their evil black guns, what will you do? You gonna watch from your couch as the feds kill him or get in a truck and back him up? We cannot allow another Waco or Ruby Ridge to happen without a clear response from the American people.

So there's my thoughts... Enjoy.

 

[Flopsweat]

I care. I'd far rather stop them from passing the law in the first place. It's real romantic to talk about violating an unconstitutional law, but when you're in prison I understand that "romance" takes on a more sinister meaning. It's certainly more of a waste of valuable time than fighting passage of a bad law.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

If King County can steal the governor's office, I suspect they can pull off a state wide initiative.

 

[Schlepnier]

There has got to be a hearing on it evntually, we just need to be there in force. and contact our local representative of course.

 

[amlevin]

California and other States got away with banning certain weapons because they aren't constrained by a State Constitution that is far more restrictive on Government when it comes to gun rights.

How many years elapsed before SCOTUS finally ruled that the right to bear arms extended to Self Defense, not just militia? That right has been specified in the WA State Constitution ever since written.

When all the hype and paranoia finally settles down to meaningful discussion among lawmakers, with advice from Constitutional Lawyers on what they can or can't do, hopefully more focus will be placed on the causes, not the tools.

I read that Mental Health Care in the US (as far as facilities) is now at the same level as existed in the 1850's. Now that's progress.

 

[compmanio365]

I care. I'd far rather stop them from passing the law in the first place. It's real romantic to talk about violating an unconstitutional law, but when you're in prison I understand that "romance" takes on a more sinister meaning. It's certainly more of a waste of valuable time than fighting passage of a bad law.

I don't disagree with violating an unconstitutional and immoral law.....but I will do everything I reasonably can before then to see that the law in question never takes effect. If I can avoid becoming a criminal, I'll do everything I can to do so. When the government makes it impossible for my ideals and their laws to coexist, then a criminal I will be. And I will sleep soundly knowing that I did everything I could to avoid that situation.

 

[Freedom First]

I don't disagree with violating an unconstitutional and immoral law.....but I will do everything I reasonably can before then to see that the law in question never takes effect. If I can avoid becoming a criminal, I'll do everything I can to do so. When the government makes it impossible for my ideals and their laws to coexist, then a criminal I will be. And I will sleep soundly knowing that I did everything I could to avoid that situation.

Amen.


For decades Americans have been pushed and pushed into a smaller and smaller corner by .gov. DC has busied itself for generations in nibbling away at our Rights and our Freedom until the people today don't even understand what Freedom truly means. Yet we still somehow believe we are free. I for one, do not feel that the joy of applying for a permit to carry a gun is Freedom. Or being restricted in what manner of defense I choose for me and my family. "...shall not be infringed." Simple, clear and rendered totally impotent today by men who will surrender their Rights for false peace.

I'm personally done with playing this futile game that uses only their rules and restricts any choice of action to the merely legislative. I will defy further laws which erode my Rights and will join with others who will do so. I will fly my flag and dare them to tear it down. Let them show their true colors when faced by an armed and defiant American. He will not be alone this time.

Then who is the criminal? Is he the one who stands for the Right in the face of the wicked or is he the weak man who abides and even enables the wicked in their oppression of his own offspring? The criminal is the man or woman who, on taking a public Oath to the Constitution, immediately violates it and sells his neighbor into bondage.

Let me add that men like Flopsweat were rampant in the Tory party in the 1770s. Enjoy the chains wrought by your own fear...

 

[sudden valley gunner]

California and other States got away with banning certain weapons because they aren't constrained by a State Constitution that is far more restrictive on Government when it comes to gun rights.

How many years elapsed before SCOTUS finally ruled that the right to bear arms extended to Self Defense, not just militia? That right has been specified in the WA State Constitution ever since written.

When all the hype and paranoia finally settles down to meaningful discussion among lawmakers, with advice from Constitutional Lawyers on what they can or can't do, hopefully more focus will be placed on the causes, not the tools.

I read that Mental Health Care in the US (as far as facilities) is now at the same level as existed in the 1850's. Now that's progress.

We are the militia by definition.

I had posted a link not too long ago somewhere here on the history of WA state constitution.

The Progressive statist like Theodore Roosevelt were on the rise, our state constitution was written in a way to make sure the rights were more secure.

 

[Flopsweat]

...
Let me add that men like Flopsweat were rampant in the Tory party in the 1770s. Enjoy the chains wrought by your own fear...

You remind me of Mr. Furious in Mystery Men. I'm advocating actively fighting passage the law rather than howling at the moon and pounding your chest. If they do pass the law, we fight to get it repealed. There are lots of steps. Once we've exhausted all other options, then and only then is it time for the fire-breathers to step in. Somehow I doubt that those folks will be the same people who were making idle threats and insulting their allies over the internet before the law was even passed.

 

[TheGunMan]

I like this

I don't disagree with violating an unconstitutional and immoral law.....but I will do everything I reasonably can before then to see that the law in question never takes effect. If I can avoid becoming a criminal, I'll do everything I can to do so. When the government makes it impossible for my ideals and their laws to coexist, then a criminal I will be. And I will sleep soundly knowing that I did everything I could to avoid that situation.

Ditto

 

[sensei9]

Email from my state rep

I don't post here often, but thought you all might want to read this. Sent am email to my rep in Olympia Sunday. Got this reply back today


Honorable Representative Dean Takko

As a registered voter & concerned American, I am writing because I am appalled by the opportunistic push for more gun control in the wake of the Newtown shooting, and I want you to understand, in no uncertain terms, that further infringements on the right to keep & bear arms will simply not be tolerated.

Using the deplorable actions of a certifiable madman as justification to deprive law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment freedoms is not only morally repugnant.

Americans of all political affiliations are waking up to the realization that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety & security, and they are arming themselves in record numbers.

I, along with millions of Washington Citizens, intend to keep a close eye on how you deal with this issue in the upcoming months, so if you value your own political future, and that of your party, you will heed my advice... gun control is a losing issue!


Respectfully,

This is what he sent me

As someone that owns let's just say more than one gun, I think we agree.
Dean

 

[Batousaii]

I see your letter to him, but did you intend to post his reply to you?

Or was

As someone that owns let's just say more than one gun, I think we agree.
Dean

his reply???

was not quite clear on that.

 

[Freedom First]

You remind me of Mr. Furious in Mystery Men. I'm advocating actively fighting passage the law rather than howling at the moon and pounding your chest. If they do pass the law, we fight to get it repealed. There are lots of steps. Once we've exhausted all other options, then and only then is it time for the fire-breathers to step in. Somehow I doubt that those folks will be the same people who were making idle threats and insulting their allies over the internet before the law was even passed.

Oh, sir, I agree that fighting the onrushing law is appropriate though perhaps a bit futile. I also know that the very men who died at Lexington were there for less of an offense than what we endure today. The men who drove the Crown's officers from the countryside in the early and mid 1770s were motivated by some small taxes (compared to what we pay today), some abusive laws and the clear disparity in treatment they received as non-British subjects of the Crown. They held to the British Constitution until it had clearly left them behind. Only then did they move against those who abused them.

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when <nearly 45%> of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are <economic> slaves, and a whole country <Iraq, Afghanistan, who's next?> is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army." HD Thoreau

So, sure, call your "representatives" and beg for a little mercy from the system. Maybe they'll see fit to allow us to keep our precious little ARs. For a while. Perhaps they will smile on us this time. Or not.

The track record of governments over the last 100+ years make it clear to me that the intention is to bring us to a place of complete reliance on them backed by a monopoly of force in the hands of those who rule. That's not the safest place for me and my children to live since we do not live in the mainstream.

So, what's my choice? Hope for the system to set me and mine free? Yeah, that'll work. That once great system you hold to has lost it's credibility with many Americans. It's suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. They have lied to us for far too long. People are starting to see the truth about their government and they don't like it. I see it and I don't like it.

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry <American Federal Government> for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!" Patrick Henry, Speech to the House of Burgesses