Their goal is clear

Here is the Washington State Alliance for Gun Responsibility agenda for 2019:

RESTRICT ACCESS TO HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES: High-capacity magazines make  shootings more deadly and allow shooters to fire more rounds, faster. Recent reviews of mass shootings showed that 50% involved high-capacity magazines and, in shootings where high-capacity magazines are used, more people are shot overall and more people die. Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm would reduce risks and help limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies in Washington.

“Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm”? If you know someone is looking to cause harm why are they not in a cell or getting psychological help? And how do they think they can determine this? What are the details of a law they think will accomplish this? Reviewing your social media history? Interviewing your friends and neighbors every time you want to buy a spare magazine?

If they were serious about wanting to “limit the scope of mass shootings tragedies” they would encourage the one thing known to work over 90% of the time. Since they will never suggest that you know they are lying when they say they want to “limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies”.

Joining the 27 states and the Distict [sic] of Columbia who require safety training for a
concealed pistol license;

This isn’t because there is a problem with people with CPLs being a hazard to public safety. We are already much less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer when confronted with a deadly force situation. This is about making it more expensive and difficult to get a CPL.

Updating our list of people prohibited from possession firearms to include additional
crimes that are indicators of future violence and individuals found incompetent to stand trial.

It isn’t good enough that convicted felons and domestic abusers are prohibited persons. They want to expand it to those convicted of “additional crimes that are indicators of future violence”. Misdemeanors which happened 40 years ago? Public intoxication 20 years ago?

For over 30 years, our local towns, cities, and counties
have been blocked from taking action to prevent gun violence own [sic] their own because
of the statewide preemption law. Local leaders are best positioned to know how best
to protect their communities.

They want to remove preemption. The crazy patchwork of laws that will be impossible to remember will make it a high risk adventure to travel across the county with a gun let alone across the state.

Today, we take steps to keep
our kids safe by making schools gun-free zones. It just makes sense to extend these
gun-free zones to child care and early learning centers.

They want more “gun-free zones”! It is the existing “gun-free zones” where something like 90% of the mass shooting occur. And they want to create more of them. This cannot be for any other reason than they want to make it more and more risky to own and carry a firearm. This is not about keeping “kids safe”.

Crime guns are a major problem and a
contributor to gun violence across our state. There are common-sense steps we can
take to keep crime guns off our streets and make our communities safer.

Allow the State Patrol to destroy confiscated crime guns, rather than require them
to auction or trade them.

This is almost baffling. One way to interpret this is that they believe that once a gun has been involved in a crime they think it is more likely to be used to commit a crime in the future. Don’t laugh! This is what some people believe (see also here).

Another way to interpret this is that they believe this is, in essence, a zero sum game. They may actually believe that every time a gun is destroyed that is one less gun in existence. This is, of course, not true. It just increases the market size for new guns. Is this what they really want?

Considering the usual lack of sophistication I don’t think this is the most likely thought process but they may think that raising the price, by decreasing the supply, of guns can be achieved this way. Increasing the price means that fewer people can afford them making it more unlikely people will exercise their rights. The problem with this line of thinking is that the number of “crime guns” is so small compared to the total new gun sales, less than 1%, that any change is in the noise.

Ensuring we are able to respond to new technology by closing loopholes that
currently allow sharing and downloading designs for untraceable weapons that can
be printed or manufactured anywhere.

They want to infringe on the First Amendment as well as the Second. Got it. That’s not going to work any better than the war on drugs. When law enforcement can’t keep high school dropout from getting illegal drugs from South America 24×7 via boats and airplanes there is no chance of keeping encrypted files from sneaking in from anywhere in the world at the speed of light.

Their goal is clear. In the short term they want to make gun ownership difficult, risky, and expensive. Long term they want to eliminate it.

We can’t out vote them. We have to stop them in the courts. They won’t stop unless we stop them. Help stop them.

8 thoughts on “Their goal is clear

  1. In a home invasion scenario (or any defensive scenario), any kind of assault typically pits the innocent/home-owner against an unknown number of assailants.

    The assailants already have the advantage of surprise, and shock, and preparedness. The defending party is fortunate to have a firearm at hand to return fire; he/she doesn’t know how many people are involved, so a maximum number of available rounds is the only possible advantage,

    It is a positive factor for the defender to be reloading as quickly and as effectively as possible, But it is more important that the defender need reload less frequently … thus allowing more defensive shots be fired in the shortest possible time-frame. The goal is to meet multiple attackers with firepower, thus breaking up their attack and sowing confusion and surprise among the assailants.

    Limiting the number of rounds which might “legally” be carried in a semi-automatic firearm (handgun, shotgun or rifle) does not provide a positive benefit to the lone defender. He/she may be defending against more attackers than can reliably be rendered “hors de combat” with (for example) a five- or six-shot revolver.

    People who legislate against “High Capacity Magazines” tend to forget that the bad guys will have free access to any devices which increase their firepower.

    These proposed laws provide no deterrent to criminals, but cripple (perhaps fatally) the ability of the law-abiding to defend home, self, family, property.

    People who would limit the rights of citizens to defend themselves are not only ignorant, but willfully dismissive of the peril which they would impose upon law-abiding citizens.

    “A Liberal is someone who has never been been shot at.”

    God bless them for their innocence, but God damn their arrogance.

  2. First, you know it’s only about the persecution of anyone who upholds the basic American principles. They’ll make up whatever tortured reasoning, tortured logic, and tortured language is necessary to accomplish that persecution.

    Second; you can readily perceive the tortured language coming from a liar. One of many examples of tortured language in the quote can be found in the very first sentence;

    “High-capacity magazines make shootings more deadly and allow shooters to fire more rounds, faster.”

    It’s saying that the magazine does two things. it gives a shooter the ability to fire more rounds faster, and it makes shootings more deadly (as if firing more rounds faster is, in itself, not enough). In other words, they seem to be saying that a cartridge fed into a gun’s chamber from a higher capacity magazine is thereby somehow imbued with a “deadliness” it would not possess if that cartridge were fed into a gun’s chamber from a smaller capacity magazine.

    They probably wanted to say, “High-capacity magazines make shootings more deadly by allowing shooters to fire more rounds, faster” thus linking a cause to an effect using the word “by”. Something in their hate-addled brains cannot allow them such linguistic discernment, and so their words will stumble and flail about like a drunkard.

    The proper fix for that opening sentence, and the title, of course would be this;

    REGARDING CITIZENS’ RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CIVIL DEFENSE: “High-capacity magazines make the defense of innocent life, liberty and property more efficient by allowing defenders to fire more rounds, faster. Therefore, by way of upholding and increasing the peace and security of a free state, and of keeping in awe those who would jeopardize said peace and security, we encourage all people of good will to acquire as many large capacity magazines as possible, and likewise to acquire and maintain in readiness the arms in which to use them…”

    Doesn’t that make a lot more sense? Is that not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and with the bedrock principles, the perfect law of liberty, from which it was derived?

    But the Beast is not concerned with making sense, nor with keeping the peace, for it hates the American founding principles. It wants to blame and punish, to loot, lord, degrade and destroy. It is the mind of Cain, of Nimrod, and of Herod, which would stand on the ashes of a once promising nation and crow like a rooster.

    Nor are our state’s “leaders” (they are clearly fond of thinking themselves “leaders”) concerned with upholding American principles.

  3. “We can’t out vote them. We have to stop them in the courts. They won’t stop unless we stop them. ”

    Anyone who actually believes we can “stop them in the courts” is DELUSIONAL.
    The left has spent DECADES creating a judiciary that happily implements what THEY WANT. If the legal system was a friend of the Second Amendment than all those 20K plus gun laws would have been overturned a LONG TIME AGO. Make no mistake about it….ANY law that limits the ability of an honest person to
    exercise their 2A right will ALWAYS be upheld by the criminal black robed pirates. Want to defend your rights? The UGLY HONEST TRUTH is it’s going
    to require killing…..a LOT of killing, of judges, politicians, media whores and plain old liberal morons. Because we are long past the point where we can force those in power to respect our rights using the soap box, the ballot box or the jury box. The ONLY box left is the cartridge box and they are working very hard to eliminate that one. Don’t like the truth? Too bad. The truth is often ugly but it makes it no less true. We are in a fight….to the death…..for freedom and the future of America as it was founded and intended to exist.

    • SCOTUS gave us Heller and McDonald. It may soon be able to give us more.

      If you really believed what you say then either the killings should have already started or else you aren’t defending our rights as you think they should be defended.

  4. I’ll agree that the courts are the proper forum for ensuring correlation between rights and authority.

    But…..I have great foreboding about institutions that would so willfully ignore existing rights structure and seek to inanely implement statutory destruction of rights, in such a manner that strikedown is a nearly foregone conclusion (I’ll concur with those who point out a different makeup of SCOTUS would make such strikedown impossible, and that even with the court’s current composition complete eradication is not guaranteed).

    I look at the Left Coast, and places like New Jersey, and fear for the future; I can’t predict where it’s all going, but I’ll wager heavily that it’s no place good. There is something very, very drastically wrong with our culture and society, and I doubt anything positive will manifest itself without a period of severe review and revision.

    America was never supposed to be a place where the triviality of daily affairs, especially those within an established rights structure, became a political, social, legal or economic battleground demanding constant war footing to maintain basic survival, but that’s where we are.

  5. I would guess that most of these proposed laws won’t make it through our legislature, but unfortunately we’ll see them again as initiatives – which will likely pass. Personally, I think it’s high time to dilute their efforts by starting an initiative for Constitutional Carry, make them spend their dollars on the defensive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.