Stupid fucking D-bags. ('D' standing both for Democrat and douche, in this case.)

http://www.examiner.com/article/wash-st ... -criminals

I can't imagine this passing, but holy Christ, even being proposed is ridiculous. Frankly, I'd be just fine if the guys proposing this died from home invasions tonight. This is so broad and all-encompassing, it's practically a ban of anything that you can assault someone with that fires a round of ammunition. "Assault weapons", indeed. Assclowns.

Welp, looks like I have to go buy a couple assault rifles.

Careful; if this passes, those Airsoft and pellet guns you just bought will get you tossed in jail if you don't turn 'em in.

Unless they are fired by an explosive such as gunpowder, then no, no they won't.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdo ... s/5737.pdf

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

WTF. Stupid government. Stay out of our lives!

I was being facetious...That wasn't obvious?

Wow. Who was saying nobody would ever, ever propose something this draconian in a hundred million years?

It's all for our protection, though, isn't it? That way, only cops and military would have guns. And we all know they never ever go on murderous shooting rampages or conduct "workplace violence."

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Murderous shooting rampages ARE workplace violence, just ask the people who were wounded in Fort Hood.

Also, they better not come for my new assault rifle, I just went out and purchased it and you wouldn't believe how easy it was! Anyone who tries to enter my home will get a nerf dart to the eye, and they better watch out because I got the fully automatic version!

I can understand taking away assault rifles even if they are semi-auto. But all assault weapons? That is going too far the other way. If they do this, they will have to ramp up the police presence in all major WA cities. Right now, having a civilian population that can own guns plays a part in home invasion robberies not being higher. Take away the civilian guns and what is going to stop a criminal from breaking into a house? Harsh words and a loud dog? Those work well when you have a gun to go with them. The only way to combat the effect of removing the civilian guns is to dramatically increase the police presence to help alleviate increased crime rates.

Right now, I do not own a gun. I haven't really needed one and I know that criminals are not going to be interested in stealing my meager possessions. Even if they do think about stealing them, they aren't going to know whether or not I have a gun. That unknown about the American civilian population makes home invasion a very scary prospect for criminals. Take away the guns and the home invasions will go up. Guns don't always have to be used, just pulling one out can create the desired effect: getting the person who made you pull get out of your face.

What do you guys think?

_________________
Brass knuckles and a 2x4.

This time it wasn't for some reason. I'm really off my game today and reading into things too much.

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

Yeah, I know that feeling. When I first started posting here, I had to get used to the humor. It all seemed like directed flaming but it wasn't. This a funny group of guys (as you know). Just have to learn the humor.

_________________
Brass knuckles and a 2x4.

I can usually tell when everyone here is sarcasm on or not. I've been off all day not just here, but in general. It's really starting to bug the shit outta me. I blame Communism.

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

It's the offseason, nothing is ever "Just right" until the season starts back up again.

You guys need more than ten round magazines for self defense in your home?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Do you need more than 600 calories a day?

Good one!

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Congratulations on being too fucking stupid to understand the difference between "needing" and "wanting". Guess what, if cars with 3-cylinder engines that got 60 mpg were the only thing allowed on the roads, you'd see a lot fewer teenage driving deaths; but we don't enforce that, now do we?

You really say some stupid shit sometimes, Sonic. Unless you're prepared to go with the bare minimum that is adequate everywhere else in life, shut up with comments like that. Hmmm, if we limited buildings to two stories, there would have been no towers to fly 747s into in NYC. That'd be brilliant, as well! Let's get it done! What else can we place severe restrictions on to promote safety? Hmmm, cars that can only go 15 miles per hour, max. Excellent. Do that, too!

You're the moron who keeps comparing driving accident deaths to intentional firearm deaths.

There's a lot of stuff I want but unfortunately that's not how the world works. You want a semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round clip? What the fuck for? Fucking pansy, get over it.

Congratulations on being too fucking in love with guns to realize how fucking stupid it is to have 200M+ of them in our country.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I don't even own a gun, you douchenozzle. Also, a lot of gun deaths in this country are accidental. Far from most, obviously, but there are still plenty.

Also, you are clearly an idiot in assuming that larger clips cause more death. It's not how many rounds you have, it's how accurately you aim with them; and any competent pistol owner can swap clips in a couple of seconds. Another thing, I'm the one that "keeps" comparing driving accidents to firearm deaths? I did it once. Period. Your point was that you think there will be less death with smaller clip sizes. That almost certainly would not only not be true, but it might be the opposite.

Most "gangstas" carry guns with dozen+ round clips because of how many cartridges they hold in one clip, (which is arguably not the right way to go in the first place) so if their choice is say, a 7-round .40 or a 7-round .50 Desert Eagle, (a significantly, significantly more powerful pistol) then they'll start rolling with the more powerful gun since there's no benefit of having more ammo in the weaker one, if this kind of legislation passes. Know what that will result in? More gun deaths, instead of treated gunshot wounds where people live.

Another wonderful fact that only comes up when talking full bans, but gets ignored in talks of assault weapon and large clip bans is that suicide is over half (55%) of all firearm fatalities in this country. They don't need any specific type of weapon for this and most certainly won't need too many bullets to do the deed.

Fact is that banning certain clips won't do any good. Banning what they are now trying to define as assault weapons won't do any good. Is there a case long term that a complete ban could save lives? It's possible, but when you weigh it against the constitutional right, that's not going to happen. A total ban is not happening and these little mini bans just aren't going to accomplish anything like what they want to accomplish.