Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Name ONE politician trying to take you're guns!!1

GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,496 Standard Supporter
A sampling of what's proposed in the Warshington legislature this term.
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS BAN - Senate Bill 5217 arbitrarily classifies many popularly-owned semi-automatic firearms as so-called “assault weapons” and bans their possession, manufacture, transfer, etc. These firearms are widely used for self-defense, recreational shooting, and hunting, and have now been vilified due to cosmetic features. It is extremely important that NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters contact their lawmakers in opposition to SB 5217.

MAGAZINE BAN - Senate Bill 5078, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc., of magazines that “are capable of holding,” or hold more than, 17 rounds of ammunition. Amendments to the bill are expected to lower this to 12 or even 10 rounds. This includes conversion kits or parts from which any such magazine may be assembled. These so-called “high capacity” magazines are, in fact, standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances, such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Prohibited magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms, and must be stored locked at home, making them unavailable for self-defense. Any violation of this measure is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. ​

ANTI-PREEMPTION - Senate Bill 5568 guts the state’s preemption laws. SB 5568 will expand gun free zones and permit municipalities to ban the open carry of firearms. These types of measures result in a complex patchwork of gun laws across the state that ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners, turning them into criminals.

GHOST GUNS BAN - HB 1705 further restricts the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use ​and self-defense by imposing requirements that far exceed those in federal law. It seeks to prohibit private individuals from possessing certain unregulated components commonly-used by hobbyists to make their own firearms, as well as possessing currently legal firearms that don’t have serial numbers.
«13

Comments

  • 46XiJCAB46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    The entire left.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    Yeah, but name ONE who actually has POWER….
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,960 Standard Supporter
    edited February 2022

    Yeah, but name ONE who actually has POWER….

    Justin Trudeau

    I guess the new all powerful is Gavin Newsom. Until the convoy goes to Sacramento and Gavin has to 'quarantine'.

  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,644 Standard Supporter
    46XiJCAB said:

    The entire left communist party.

    Fixed that for you!
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959
    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,883

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    I am against the implication that you are straight
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Your disdain for the constitution is well documented

    Seems unlikely since I think the constitution is great.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,644 Standard Supporter

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.

    The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.

    Fuck off.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,448 Founders Club

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Your disdain for the constitution is well documented

    Seems unlikely since I think the constitution is great.
    It just needs to drop 10 pounds and maybe get a nose job
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,496 Standard Supporter

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,960 Standard Supporter
    edited February 2022

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
    Banning and trying to take are two very different things.

    amirite, @RandyWeaverDawg?



  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
    States rights?

    “No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

    Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959
    Sledog said:

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.

    The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.

    Fuck off.
    It also says well regulated.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,883
    Damn I just shot a snarky email off to one of my owners like hey dickhead you had me send this agreement out and you are ruining my perfect record. No joke the moment I shot it off the dude signed. I was like fuck. Poor timing lol
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,448 Founders Club

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
    States rights?

    “No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

    Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
    Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

    It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

    You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
    States rights?

    “No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

    Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
    Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

    It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

    You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't
    Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,883

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.
    States rights?

    “No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

    Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
    Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

    It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

    You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't
    Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.
    You sound super fucking gay

    But admitting defeat in front of easily surmountable odds is why you are a leftist
  • BleachedAnusDawgBleachedAnusDawg Member Posts: 11,433

    I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

    While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

    You have got to be the most naive dipshit I've ever encountered in real life and fake internet life. End your carbon footprint.

    You would be happy with every kind of gun but the dollar store potato guns being banned and would somehow do the mental gymnastics to claim all guns weren't banned, etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.