Washington Votes Forum

Nothing could be better than banning weapons that people are accidentally killed by far too many times a year.

Not only a day late...but short on a lot civic responsibility and a marked lack of substantial facts as well. Read the Constitution; and after your done with the United States Constitution, go back and read the Washington State Constitution. More people die from alcohol abuse, accidental drowning, or medical malpractice than all firearm deaths all combined. You don't like my choice of firearm, I don't like your choice of diatribe! Especially when your diatribe flies in the face of our constitutionaly protected RIGHTS! Rights granted not by any government but by the very power that so graciously ALLOWS government to exist at all. THAT is in the founding documents of this country too. Try reading those! While your at it...perhaps you should read them ALL. Civic responsibility includes protecting our rights...ALL of them.

Word of Mouth is how people find my 300 classic entertainment variety videos- Youtube/ Google should pay more attention to producer's who present quality entertainment and help to promote their channel or someday they may well find a better place to showcase their productions- Just a thought.. joelsamuelpresents

I don't like your diatribe either, pal. For one thing, malaria kills more people than "alcohol abuse, accidental drowning, [and] medical malpractice" combined. So, by the line of reasoning you just employed, we should get rid of lifeguards, ban malpractice suits, and legalize drunk driving. Incidentally, there's a big difference between legislating diatribe and legislating assault weapons: diatribe doesn't kill people. Sorry, but I happen to think my right to be safe from any psychotic impulse that runs through your head precludes your right to tote around a submachine gun. The constitution, as you so astutely pointed out, derives its authority from the people. Do you really think "the people" consent to your ownership of an AK-47? And where does it say in the Constitution that you have a right to carry around any darn weapon you please? Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own fighter jets? Or battleships? Or suitcase nukes?

Who's the one beating a dead horse? The senator that introduced a reasonable and socially conscientious senate bill that could save dozens of lives—or a commentator who double-posted a meaningless ad hominem attack?

Here's the thing. If your hypothetical gun owner who only wants to use his/her firearm at the range (like me) is prevented from owning both a Ruger 10/12 and a Mark I with high cap mags, How am I a victim mask-wearing, stripy-shirt sporting bad guys? Didn't I just want the firearms for range shooting anyway? If you can't defend your home with two firearms loaded with 10-shot magazines, maybe you should rethink your emergency plan. Like running instead of shooting. Learn to shoot and earn your right to bear arms.

More children are killed by drowning in 5 gallon buckets than by assault weapons. Shouldn't we license and regulate buckets first?

Regardless of your position on this Bill, please keep posts civil and constructive. ***** Personally, I adamantly oppose this bill: First, it is in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and thus in violation of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Washington.... Second, it directly violates Article I, Section 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." Third, the now-expired federal version of this legislation was demonstrably counter-productive in terms of reducing crime or otherwise increasing the safety of law-abiding citizens. In my opinion, no one with even a casual acquaintance with the Federalist Papers and the writings of the the *many* people who publicly debated the intent and necessity of adopting (or rejecting) the Bill of Rights, can logically support this bill. Conversely, those who support such laws are generally dismissive of the "inconvenient truth". Since they cannot logically support their argument, they try to drag their opponents down to their own emotion-based level. I urge everyone to neither fuel stereotypes nor to allow the discussion to stray from reasoned discussion. molon labe

This is a long-overdue, first baby step toward banning all private ownership of handguns. Our Wild West mentality is embarrassing . . . and life-threatening.

It would be wonderful if we could ask other countries to not attack us, and never worry again, but that's not how things work in real life. We can't just ask people to stop using drugs so we made them illegal, and now we have drug dealers. If we start banning guns, the only people who will have them are our police, military, and anyone smart enough and wreckless enough to do some damage. Removing citizens of their right to bear arms is an almost communistic view of ruling.

So what if the creators of the Constitution didn't envision automatic weapons? They had duels where one could openly kill another if both accepted to a duel. Of course no one would duel now a days with guns as powerful as they are, but even still the fact that we're done with dueling shows how much more civilized we've grown (well, most of us.)

So what if the creators of the Constitution didn't envision automatic weapons? They had duels where one could openly kill another if both accepted to a duel. Of course no one would duel now a days with guns as powerful as they are, but even still the fact that we're done with dueling shows how much more civilized we've grown (well, most of us.)

How could this be a step in the right direction? Making it illegal to own firearms will not do our state or country any good. It is far more easy to obtain an illegal firearm than to get one legally. And for the most part people who are buying them legally do not intend to use them illegally. the criminals in our society will get them one way or another and i for one enjoy the right to defend myself against those who may want to hurt me or god forbid my family.