- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Gun rights supporters stage an 'I will not comply' rally in Washington state
Posted on 12/14/14 at 4:55 pm
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 on 12/14/14 at 7:22 pm to weagle99
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 on 12/14/14 at 7:24 pm to boosiebadazz
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 on 12/14/14 at 7:28 pm to Sentrius
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.
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 on 12/14/14 at 7:40 pm to boosiebadazz
'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).
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 on 12/14/14 at 7:57 pm to weagle99
So weapons a typical infantry unit would use?
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:02 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Fine by me.
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:03 pm to Scruffy
as long as i get my flame thrower it's all good.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:04 pm to weagle99
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:05 pm to asurob1
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.
Not a very smart weapon choice.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:07 pm to boosiebadazz
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:10 pm to weagle99
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:11 pm to boosiebadazz
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:12 pm to Geaux8686
How can you fight tyranny if you don't have the same type of weapons as the tyrannical force?
Let's ask the Syrians.
Let's ask the Syrians.
Posted on 12/14/14 at 8:13 pm to asurob1
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:13 pm to asurob1
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 on 12/14/14 at 8:17 pm to boosiebadazz
Read Heller. It's full of great discussion about what "arms" means.
This post was edited on 12/14/14 at 8:22 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News