Started By
Message
locked post

Gun rights supporters stage an 'I will not comply' rally in Washington state

Posted on 12/14/14 at 4:55 pm
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 4:55 pm
quote:

Following a tradition going back to at least the Whiskey Rebellion of the early 1790s, demonstrators gathered here Saturday afternoon at the Capitol to protest the tyranny of what they consider unlawful American government.

But instead of decrying a tax on distilled liquor such as Pennsylvanians did just years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, demonstrators here at the “I Will Not Comply” rally denounced a law expanding gun-purchase background checks that was approved last month by Washington voters.

Initiative 594, which voters passed by a 19-point margin, expands background checks to people buying firearms in private sales or exchanging them in a transfer.


quote:

“The people that are trying to take our guns are the ones that are causing events where children and families and people are lost,” said Seim, who ran unsuccessfully this year for U.S. Congress.

Washington State Patrol put the crowd at about 1,000 people; Seim estimated 1,500.

While on stage, Seim burned his state concealed-weapons permit and advocated that people should buy tanks and bazookas if they wanted them.


quote:

At a booth sporting an LGBT pride rainbow design, demonstrators picked up rifles in what they said was an illegal transfer of a gun from one person to another under I-594.

But the State Patrol, which policed the event, had announced that it could not prove such an action violated the law and would not arrest people for handing firearms to each other.

There were no arrests or other issues during Saturday’s demonstration, according to Trooper Guy Gill.


LINK
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 5:17 pm
Posted by Strannix
District 11
Member since Dec 2012
48911 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:20 pm to
frick the government
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80228 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:22 pm to
According to an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, we should be able to buy tanks and bazookas and anything and everything the military has.
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:24 pm to
quote:

According to an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, we should be able to buy tanks and bazookas and anything and everything the military has.


Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80228 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:28 pm to
Make the distinction.

I don't recall a 'public interest' exception to the Second Amendment. I believe that dreaded judicial activism is what made it where we couldn't buy military-grade weapons.
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 7:30 pm
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:40 pm to
'Arms' were generally considered to be 'small arms' IIRC.

But, I also believe that private citizens should be able to own the same type of small arms owned by the government (LE and Military).
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80228 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 7:57 pm to
So weapons a typical infantry unit would use?
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:01 pm to
Small arms, yes.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
72065 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:02 pm to
quote:

According to an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, we should be able to buy tanks and bazookas and anything and everything the military has.
Fine by me.
Posted by asurob1
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
26971 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:03 pm to
as long as i get my flame thrower it's all good.
Posted by WalkingTurtles
Alexandria
Member since Jan 2013
5913 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:04 pm to
There was no mention of any particular arms at all, just arms, and it was included with a militia clause however. A militia is a civilian army, and since it's an army it should be able to equip itself as such. That means buy any and all military hardware that a private citizen or group can afford.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
72065 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:05 pm to
Never the best idea for a weapon. Too damaging to the surrounding area and the potential for harm to the user is too great.

Not a very smart weapon choice.
Posted by Geaux8686
Location Location
Member since Oct 2014
2617 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:07 pm to
quote:

According to an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, we should be able to buy tanks and bazookas and anything and everything the military has.



Canned Sunshine.

Of course it wouldn't be safe, but the population of the US would be a lot more polite.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80228 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:10 pm to
I don't recall seeing the word "small" anywhere in the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, I don't recall much at all in terms of a qualifier on the type of arms.

Posted by Geaux8686
Location Location
Member since Oct 2014
2617 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

So weapons a typical infantry unit would use?


Yes, take a guess of how many crimes have been committed by legal select-fire weapons. You would be surprised.

I would draw the line at AT-4's and such, maybe just a few. The 2A was written for the population to protect themselves from tyranny.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80228 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:12 pm to
How can you fight tyranny if you don't have the same type of weapons as the tyrannical force?

Let's ask the Syrians.
Posted by Geaux8686
Location Location
Member since Oct 2014
2617 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:13 pm to
quote:

as long as i get my flame thrower it's all good


Flame throwers are legal and you have to meet no requirements.
Posted by wickowick
Head of Island
Member since Dec 2006
45804 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:13 pm to
quote:


Message
Posted by asurob1
as long as i get my flame thrower it's all good.



Is not a gun and legal to own no restrictions...
Posted by Geaux8686
Location Location
Member since Oct 2014
2617 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:15 pm to
Deja-vu
Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20868 posts
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:17 pm to
Read Heller. It's full of great discussion about what "arms" means.
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 8:22 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram