![]() |
|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#101 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,061
|
I've said, and outraged people, that the argument that AR's, etc. aren't true 'assault weapons' is a waste of time and counterproductive. It is angels on the head of pin to an atheist. It makes gun folks all a quiver when an anti uses the term. However, it won't stop a ban of all semis (which is now clearly the goal). Even in the gun world, the term has history.
I downloaded the From its intro (2008): Quote:
You had better defend the guns as necessary for the purpose of the 2 Amend. as compare to cutesy I gotta ya - to antis over definitions. You see my gun is not really an assault rifle as it isn't like the one that Hitler finally approved of and his term. Reply - oh, you want to have a gun that looks like one that Hitler liked? Smarter antigun folks will leap over the nitpicking. The foe are not idiots who chortle about the thing that goes up or that once you empty a clip, you throw it away. The foe are folks who known their stuff and will write comprehensive legislation to take out all semi guns. Another rampage and such a ban might go right through Congress and Trump. Evidence for this claim comes from the NRA's vice presidential level when Charles Cotton said that except for the behind the scenes, manipulations of the NRA (which must be kept secret) - after Las Vegas, an unstoppable total AWB was in the works and would have been approved by the Congress and President. Now, whether this is true is a touch debatable but you get the drift. Current NRA claims are another issue.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
I’ve always argued that the dangerous nature of firearms is the exact reason they are a right.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() but then, I understand history, and firearms...differently than some people Hitler's approval and bestowing a name is simply a historical fact. The rest is machts nichts. Has nothing to do with what the gun is, or isn't. Quote:
The unknown (to me) individuals who crafted the language used in WA 1639 were the more dangerous "informed" type. They didn't use any set of features as their definition, the way previous laws had, they simply took the definition of what makes a semi automatic a semi automatic and declared that they were now all semiautomatic assault rifles. In hindsight, we probably shouldn't have wastes effort or energy trying to educate the unwilling. When confronted with people ranting about how bad, evil, dangerous, etc those guns are, might we have been better off to just say "so what? Read the Constitution! Now, go away, the adults are speaking... ![]() That would have been emotionally satisfying to me, but I can see where it wouldn't have played well in the kangaroo court of current public opinion.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,578
|
It’s at least a little comical to pose the question “who cares?” while arguing the point. Note that your source does not support your point. The author makes specific reference to the legislative basis for the term “assault weapon”. He is not discussing the term “assault rifle”. Aside from the author’s text in your quote, is the title of the work, “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”.
I doubt anyone has missed your derision of accuracy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the thrust of one’s position is to oppose clarity and rest on false dichotomies, some re-evaluation is in order. Does accuracy in language magically dispose of political challenges to exercise of a constitutionally protected right? Clearly not. Clarity is only a foundation. People who oppose the rights described in the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments all have their reasons for their positions, and simply being clear about what we are discussing will not be the entire argument. As a general matter, clarity helps better arguments, well poorer arguments may find support in error and fallacy. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
I’m actually surprised at the lack of alarm about this law amongst gun owners. Doesn’t bode well for the future.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,578
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,061
|
Zukiphile, as usual, you miss the real battlefront as you get lost in the picky-picky weeds of trying to impress the audience. You have little appreciation of the PR battle if you think 'weapon' vs. 'rifle' is of the slightest use in fighting bans.
I certainly wouldn't want your analyses to be a major part of any campaign to prevent the bans. You are a prime example of most of the pedantic, irrevelance we see in some progun folks. Yes, that's harsh. Maybe I should infract myself?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,578
|
Quote:
It isn't pedantry to explain to you that the source you offer in support of your point doesn't support it. This initiative involves a statutory definition of "assault rifle". Your source doesn't address that. Moreover, in a discussion of the lack of authenticity in a statutory definition, your offered source explicitly incorporates just such a synthetic reference. It isn't "picky-picky weeds" that people you don't think are foes of the right actually have a record of being foes to the right. Are the fallacies and errors you've offered important parts of a PR campaign? That kind of fuzzy thinking is what brought you to your misunderstanding of Heller. If being correct isn't interesting to you, that's fine. Opposing that sort of correction does animate you. It's poor reasoning to conclude that being correct misses "the real battlefront". It's bizarre to accuse me of trying to impress anyone by posting in a forum. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; June 28, 2019 at 07:00 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#109 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
Quote:
I think nearly all those people (and waay too many of the rest of us) didn't read the details, and were only told a fraction of what was in 1639. I think most people thought it was just "another background check law" and it is much, much more than that. IT is, after all way easier to just listen to that guy on the tv than it is to read through that stuffy boring voter pamphlet.... ![]() Especially if you don't have or think you have a personal stake in the issue. You still have the same vote as those who do... This is the other pitfall of democracy..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 2,392
|
Dead bang on
You hit the nail on the head, that is exactly what happened.
I've lived on both sides on the Cascades over the years, I'm on the wet side now, thus I witnessed on the tube what you speak of. I fought, to no avail. Darn near went door to door. I chose to focus on the fact that I know a lot of Washington residents, I'm a sales rep. I did my best to get the truth out effectively. I want to quote that old Nancy Reagan? campaign, RIF. Reading is fundamental. One had to REALLY read the bill carefully to fully understand it, and most folks did not care enough to do so. The downside to these flat screen TV's? When you throw your shoe at it, the screen breaks. No, I did not break my TV. The bill was sold on the 'spin' all done up by a marketing firm.
__________________
ricklin Freedom is not free Last edited by Ricklin; July 3, 2019 at 07:26 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 405
|
"paid for by out of state money"
Not true. Washington has several billionaires who give hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to pass anti-gun ballot measures. No out of state money is needed. Last edited by cjwils; July 4, 2019 at 11:22 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 2,392
|
For those
Those of you not at all familiar with the fine state of Washington don't recognize just how skewed the vote is here, East vs. West.
Or perhaps the better thought is Seattle metro vs. the rest of the state. There are more than a couple of companies in the Seattle metro area that have made a lot of people millionaires. Microsoft of course comes immediately to mind, that's just the part of the iceberg that we can see. My point is one heck of a lot of money, that tends to be liberal.
__________________
ricklin Freedom is not free |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
As others suggested, most folks probably don't care what was in the fine print.
I can only hope that they have over stepped enough to warrant more scrutiny in the near future. Sad that this is our best hope. Our freedom continues to diminish and we hope someone with deep pockets and a sympathic heart notices.
__________________
L2R |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
I agree. It is why I viscerally hate the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to refer to AR-15s or the claims that ARs are not weapons of war. The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people to possess and use ARMS, i.e. tools of combat/war. War can be nation states fighting one another, or a people fighting a tyrannical government, or a person fighting an intruder or group of intruders into their home (because if someone is trying to maim and/or kill you, that person has declared a state of war on you and you are now engaged in combat with that person). When Aristotle wrote in Politics about the importance of the people possessing arms for defense against the criminal element and defense against the government, he did not mean special "civilian" arms that have been "approved" by the State. Quote:
I would also use the argument about people who mock Islam and then there are Muslim terrorists threatening violence because of it, well you do not outlaw mocking of Islam regardless, because again, freedom of speech. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#115 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Now some such people might argue then to just ban all semiautomatics, but those would be the more anti-gun people I would think, not the middle-of-the-road ones as much. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
to get a bit more back on track with the Washington law, (and away from "what are the best tactics" arguments for refuting gun control) I spoke with a friend who works at a local gun shop.
Since the effective date of the new law (July 1) the shop has sold half a dozen "semiautomatic assault rifles" (no, please don't argue, it is the terminology used in the law). Now, its ten days later (call it a week, due to the holiday and the weekend), and they have sold half a dozen rifles under the new law. Before July 1, half a dozen rifles was half a days business last month. Admittedly the last few month's sales volumes were probably a bubble, due to the coming law, but for certain, things have slowed down now.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
I was wondering if sales would slump off after the first.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#119 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
Quote:
The SALE of manually operated repeating rifles is not affected by the new law. As of July 1 2019, there are a number of things that went into effect, some of them we are still trying to figure out... No one under 21 can buy a semiauto assault rifle there is a $25 charge (not sure if they call it a tax or a fee) for each semiauto rifle. The buyer must provide the dealer with proof of having completed an approved safety course within the past 5 years.... There are several other provisions that apply but these are the main ones being dealt with right now. Others will be dealt with lawsuits...like the section that says that signing the 4473 gives the state the right to access your medical records...for just one there are others... The shop who's drop in business I mentioned, is oriented to the "tactical" market primarily, but they do deal in everything. At this point, according to the people I talk to, the state has provided no direction how to comply with the law. The police (around here) essentially (and unofficially) tell the dealers, "if they don't tell you, do what you think is right, we don't have any direction from the state, either" I know there are legal challenges to the law lined up for court, but I don't know the current details. This one will be interesting to see how it works its way though the legal system.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 19,049
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#121 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
Just checked, and they're calling it a fee, to offset the cost of the new requirements on semiautomatic assault rifles.
Not to exceed $25 ( adjustable each biennium to levels not to exceed the Consumer price index) how..generous of them... ![]() Oh, and it applies to each semiautomatic assault rifle purchased. SO, if you bought two ARs or an AR and a Ruger 10/22, you will fork over an extra $50 ($25 for each) to cover the increased cost of the paperwork. and OH, dear, I nearly forgot the other thing, there is a 10 BUSINESS DAY WAIT required between filling out you application to purchase and allowed delivery. get that clear in you head, too, forget the instant check Federal laws (which are still required to be done) the instant part is GONE. STATE law now requires a 10 day wait. And, if I'm reading it right, if there are any questions about your eligibility to own a semiautomatic assault rifle, the state can put your application on "administrative hold" for up to 30 days. there is a LOT more in the law, as well...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#123 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#124 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,479
|
OK, I got some clarification on the waiting period, for ALL FIREARMS, other than semiautomatic assault rifles, the wait is EITHER 10 business days, or when the background check comes through approved, which ever happens first.
ALL FIREARMS. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, repeaters or single shots, manually operated, and semi auto pistols and shotguns are all covered under this waiting period. Semi automatic assault rifles (meaning all semi auto rifles, now) are slightly different, they require a 10 (business) day wait from the time of application to purchase before delivery. SO, buy a pistol, wait 10 days, or until background check goes through approved, which ever comes first. Buy a Kar 98k Mauser, SAME THING. Buy a Rem 870, OR an 1100, same thing. Buy a Marlin model 60, or a Ruger 10/22 or an AR or AK or any semi rifle, wait 10 days, no matter if approval comes back before then, you still have to wait 10 days before the dealer can deliver your gun. As to Doctors and the medical records thing, the law ORDERS them to make you medical records available. Period. And not just once when you purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle, but periodically there after with NO end date in sight, so, potentially, the rest of you life. They don't say it, but it seems like they're saying "HIPPA be damned, we don't care!" PROBABLY the reason no Doctors are up in arms (so to speak) over this is that they don't know about it, YET. It's buried kind of deep in the law, and as far as I know, the state has not yet begun to ask for access to those records. I expect a virulent reaction from the medical community when they DO learn about it, as I expect the first time they will hear about the law is when the state demands the records. They will, of course, (like the rest of us,) feel blindsided, and probably a bit resentful. I think, depending on the timing of when the state begins demanding medical record access it could be the first part of the law to be challenged in court. Because someone will have "standing", a doctor, not just an ordinary joe. Consider this possible scenario. State demands Joe Sixpack's medical records, so THEY can determine if he is fit to be allowed to purchase the semiautomatic assault rifle he has applied for permission to purchase. Doc Brown, refuses, citing patient confidentiality, and privacy laws. State gets a court to ORDER Doc Brown to supply the records. Doc Brown's lawyers refuse. (cause he's got some by now...) State arrests Doc Brown for violating the law and the court order. headline (in pro gun press anyway) Doctor arrested for violating gun control law!! No gun involved!!! Let the courtroom fireworks begin! and like I've said before, there's still MORE in the law, things that appear to me to violate other Constitutionally enumerated rights. if it weren't so serious, it would be terribly amusing. ![]()
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#125 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Either way, it really puts the doctor in a bind. He either gets sued by the patient for violating HIPPA, or he gets cuffed and stuffed like that nurse a couple of years ago who refused to draw an illegal blood sample (iirc, the patient was unconscious and so could not give consent, and the police did not have a court order)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|