December 22, 2009
Give a Gun for Christmas (While You Still Can)

In Seattle Democrats' latest assault on the Constitution, several state legislators are attempting to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and force current owners to submit to background checks.

Why? Because "there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state." Why? Because, according to Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire, "These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."

All types of guns are weapons of war. All guns can kill. And no, these guns cannot shoot 200 bullets a minute, not with accuracy, and not at a sustained rate before they break down.

(I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns. You'd think being informed would be a prerequisite for a position like that.)

So really, why? Rep. Ross Hunter and Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are proposing to ban semi-automatics "designed for military use" (which would be determined, no doubt, by subjecting the gun designers to Vulcan mind melds) that are "capable of rapid fire" (which is likely a synonym for either "automatic," or "semi-automatic") and "can hold more than 10 rounds," motivated in part by the slaying in October of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton, with a .223 semi-automatic rifle.

The "10 rounds" thing is a dumb ploy: it's meant simply to exclude hunting rifles, which are ballistically equivalent to "military" rifles (the .223 round that killed Brenton is used for hunting, and "military" rifles don't shoot the round differently, of course). And the difference in number of rounds isn't significant: no one can point to shooting incidents where the shooter used more than a few rounds, or didn't have time to swap magazines. They include this simply because they know they will lose the bill if hunters oppose it.

Of course, Brenton could have been killed with a rifle not covered under this ban: witnesses heard eight to 10 shots. But facts don't matter when people are dying!

Now, the text of the bill isn't up, but this would probably ban the sale of some hunting rifles, and certainly would ban the sale most semi-automatic handguns, because most of them can accept clips of more than 10 rounds, and were designed with military use in mind (for example, the classic 1911 was designed explicitly for use in war, and you could easily make the argument that all semi-automatic weapons were designed for military use, given that they all use concepts designed for military weapons).

My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.

While the first repeating rifle as we know it today didn't come along for 100 years, it was not for lack of trying: the problems of reloading quickly were well-considered by The Framers, and many people of the time wondered what it would take to be able to just pull the trigger multiple times without having to reload. (Indeed, in 1780, Bartolomeo Girandoni developed his first repeater, an air rifle.) And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if they could have had such practical weapons, they would have loved for the citizens to have them, that they might be used against the British.

Maybe Kohl-Welles and her colleagues can join Fascitelli in taking a gun education class.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at December 22, 2009 08:35 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Good one Pudge! I wonder how many of these folks have ever been in the military and actually used and become familar with the weapons they so criticize?

Posted by: Duffman on December 22, 2009 08:50 AM
2. I have owned several firearms for many years, and all of them are - GASP! - semi auto-matic. So far they have never attacked, shot, or even threatened anyone. I guess they must be defective...

And 200 rounds a minute? That's much too fast - I can only reload about 200 in an hour, so I like to keep my firing rate a bit lower, if possible. No fun spending 5 hours reloading for a 30 minute firing range trip!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:54 AM
3. Oh, and I'm sure Senator Kohl-Welles is very upset with the framers for using the relatively modern flintlock, rather than the much slower-to-load-and-less-accurate matchlocks and flash-pans of the centuries before the revolution.

After all, why should the private citizens possess such modern, relatively fast and accurate (compared to previous generations) weapons? Nothing good could come from it, could it?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:59 AM
4. We are getting closer and closer to the time that we'll need to form a well regulated militia to secure our freedom, I just hope that those who are trying to take our freedoms haven't taken away our right to keep and bear arms by that time.

Posted by: Doug on December 22, 2009 09:37 AM
5. In time...As the Gun Grabbers have their way only, the Police, Military and Criminals will have Guns. When, the Citizens are no longer able to protect themselves and the Police get to perform that lifesaving duty of drawing the chalk-line around the Citizen's body more often...will we be better off? When, the Citizens now, have been made defenseless against all who carry guns...will we be better off? No, the Citizens will become no more than a commodity to be used and pillaged at the will and pleasure of those who have the Guns. Such a Deal!

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 10:08 AM
6. " why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns" Answer: If she/he did they wouldn't be involved in such a hair brained idea as to try to control crime by controling guns.

Posted by: Chuck Berlemann on December 22, 2009 10:24 AM
7. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So the framers wanted the ultimate level of balance against runaway government yet modern lawmakers think they had no intention for citizens to own military style arms? Let's see, they had just won the ability to assign the right to bear arms to citizens by defeating a tyrannical government with privately held arms but then forgot how they won their freedom and wanted the populace to become incapable of defending against tyranny in the future? Right.

Posted by: Cecil on December 22, 2009 10:27 AM
8. Barack Odumbo is already the greatest gun and ammo salesman in the history of the world and many people are already armed to the maximum extent possible.

Posted by: ajday on December 22, 2009 10:58 AM
9. Actually the law should be that you shouldn't be allowed to use welfare/church money to buy a firearm....most conservativs/republicans (the Palin types) wouldn't be able to buy one, period.

Posted by: Flsmer on December 22, 2009 11:47 AM
10. Perhaps we need current legislators to submit to a background check....

Posted by: Diogenes on December 22, 2009 11:47 AM
11. I found it funny when Ross the jerk said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas . . ."

Owning tanks isn't illegal, I've had several and still have one now.

Posted by: Dik on December 22, 2009 12:00 PM
12. I found it funny when Ross the jerk said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas . . ."

Owning tanks isn't illegal, I've had several and still have one now.

Posted by: Dik on December 22, 2009 12:00 PM
13. Flsmer: that made no sense, at all.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 12:10 PM
14. This doesn't have any effect on those who have no regard for the law and will possess WHATEVER firearm they can get hold of.

How can people be so stupid?

Posted by: Sam Adams on December 22, 2009 01:17 PM
15. Ok, take two since it is a nice lazy day with nothing to do but BS....

Clues:
1. Where do most gun sales take place? --- "Red" states and more generally amongst folks who vote "R" (or call themselves "C").

2. Which states have a lot of folks under the poverty line --- folks who depend on dollars from the innovation and hard work of blue states? Why the aformentioned red states of course.

3. Which states have a lot folks going to church? Again the poor, red staters.

4. If you are college-educated you are likley to vote "D" and not have a gun.

5. If you make more than $100k (you probably have a college degree) you are likely to vote "D" and not have a gun.

With these 5 clues even you guys can put it togheter...since many of you live in educated states like WA and CA.

So ban welfare money and church handouts being used to buy guns and what do u have.... gun sales will plummet.

Get it?

Posted by: Flamer not "flsmer" on December 22, 2009 01:22 PM
16. Watch how the liberal gun-grabbers exploit the horrid shooting of 2 officers in Pierce County last evening. They won't talk about why the killer wasn't behind bars after repeatedly threatening his family. No, they'll use the awful incident as a reason to call for gun control.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 01:31 PM
17. One more thing to help you out.

Take a typical R or C --- looks down on "illegal immigrants" and mexicans in general. All kinds of reasons apparently --from upholding the law to beign against welfare to not speaking english. Ever notice that the only reason that an R or C is not against these chaps is because of their darker skin. Other than reason that they are against them for all other reasons...but no, not skin color god forbid.

Anyway, I digress.

My larger point is that the way most Rs/Cs feel about "illegal immigrants" is how many of us feel about a lot of Rs/Cs. To be pitied and given charity or employment...it took 30-40 years for the typical R/C to give up their open racial agenda and it will take another 40-50 years for them to become productive, educated US citizens.

Till then they deserve our pity...afterall, it is the season of peace and joy!

Merry Christmas.

Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 01:32 PM
18. More guns in the hands of citizens means less violent crimes. We should reverse this trend in attempting to imprison folks who stop criminals by shooting them. One of the risks of commiting a crime should be possible death and intense pain from getting shot by a citizen with a gun. Also, do not penalize cops for shooting criminals. I don;t care if the cop was at risk or not - if a guy's fleeing a crime scene and a cops shoots to stop him, I have no problem with the fleeing criminal getting killed and/or wounded by the cop's bullets. Or from any other citizen's bullets either!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 22, 2009 01:44 PM
19. Wow. There's a new kind of stupid with this troll.

Posted by: jimg on December 22, 2009 01:53 PM
20. Flamer,

Everybody is a racist in one way or another, even your precious illegal immigrants are racists themselves. Mexicans, for example, aren't very keen on their neighbors to the South. In fact, they're racist towards the people whose bloodlines are those of the indigenous peoples of Central America.

La Raza, a Latino political group, is extremeley racist against whites and onther non-Latinos. You don't have to go very far to find racism in those groups either.

Have you ever noticed that there's a pecking order of Asians? Japanese view themselves as being at the top. The Chinese, Korean, Vietanmese and others hate the Japanese with a passion. They also hate others of difference Asian racial groups.

We're all tribal, and tribalism has a byproduct called racism. The best we can do is to not let it get out of hand, but to pretend that only white people of a particular political persuasion are racist and other groups aren't is a simplistic comment and shows a lack of worldliness on your part.

Happy Yule!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 22, 2009 01:54 PM
21. Right, @19...It may be, that Flamer is Dumber than dk/mikeBS. The Liberals have sunk to a new Low.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 02:05 PM
22. Flamer posted earlier his/her opinion on what he/she called R & C folks being basically racists. Time for someone to point out that the R folks are the ones who fought a civil war to free the slaves and that from the 1870's up through the 1960's the paramilitary wing of the D's was the KKK. In fact, current Sen. Robert Byrd (D -W. VA) rose to the rank of Exalted Cyclops in his local chapter and was a noted bigot through most of his career, leading the D folks in their filibuster of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Posted by: DDS -- NRA Life Member on December 22, 2009 02:20 PM
23. ref: Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 22, 2009 01:54 PM

Wow! Funnily enough I agree with everything you said. While you are at it drag in Africa too.

But so what? My original comments still stand.

Peace!

Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 02:21 PM
24. Ref: DDS etc.

yeah, yeah the current R party has nothing in common with the party of 1800s.

Sure, sure we all know who Byrd is. And yes we know the history of the D party. And yes why didn't you mention what the voting percentages on Civil Rigts were...it would help the point you claim to be making. But that vote for example is subject to Simpson's paradox --- a mathematical concept I will let you google (BTW product of a proud left wing company). And yes the parties have pretty much flipped on the other points.

I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...

Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 02:29 PM
25. I've seen some racist, ignorant and infantile posts here but "Flamer" or "flsmer" or whatever he wants to call himself takes the cake hands down.

Flsmer is a textbook example of what happens when you are "educated" in the government run madrassas. Factless invective as truth, abject stupidity as informed opinion mixed with clueless pot calling. 'sall good.

Hey Flsmer, that second run on the church money/gun thing is a real piss cutter. And it still doesn't make sense (well, to you maybe but . . . ).

Posted by: G Jiggy on December 22, 2009 02:29 PM
26. Flamer-who-typos-his-own-name: So ban welfare money and church handouts being used to buy guns ...

You never actually showed any such sales exist. You're just making it up. You have no relevant claims backed by reality.


Take a typical R or C --- looks down on ... mexicans in general.

You're a liar.


My larger point is that the way most Rs/Cs feel about "illegal immigrants" is how many of us feel about a lot of Rs/Cs.

How you feel has nothing to do with anything. People have rights, and you have no right to take those rights away.

In fact, it is Republicans who have been standing up lately for the rights of non-citizens to possess guns in this state. The Democrats are the ones who have tried to take the rights of non-citizens -- largely Mexicans -- away by defunding the non-citizen gun permitting process.


the typical R/C ... their open racial agenda

You're a liar.


and it will take another 40-50 years for them to become productive, educated US citizens.

I'm more productive and educated than you are. Shrug.


Politically Incorrect: Everybody is a racist in one way or another

False. I'm not, and many people I know are not.


Now then, any future posts about race -- unless it is specifically in the context of gun rights -- will be removed. Topic, please.

And if Flsmer repeats any of his lies without reasonably backing them up, he will be banned.

In this way I can have a Merry Christmas.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 02:29 PM
27. Ms. Kohl-Welles, did the framers of our Constitution ever envision morons like you?

Why yes they did and that's the principle reason they favored posterity with our precious second amendment.

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on December 22, 2009 02:30 PM
28. I do agree it was off topic but not a lie. but whatever ...feel free to do the ban thing.

Funny!

yes i stand by my statements. They were broad generalizations, also defined as true 50+% of the time.

As I said....
I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...

Posted by: Flamer on December 22, 2009 02:36 PM
29. in re: flamer "My Original comments still Stands"

In Other Words, "my mind is made up, don't cloud the issue with facts". Besides, he knows that progressives need to distract people from their other areas of incompetency.

Nice to know that the Democrats are still foresquare in their ignorance of the law, the constitution and common sense; and are wlling to violate them "for the people"; all the while lieing. They lie either because they don't know the facts, or don't want to let the facts get in the way of their nifty ideas.

Posted by: pyotr on December 22, 2009 02:41 PM
30. @20...I concur with pudge, Not everybody is a Racist. A strong GOD loving Conservative is not a Racist. A Conservative recognizes the Individual above Race, Creed and Color. He is of the understanding that you don't have a choice of what body GOD puts you into. You don't have a choice of what family or where you are born. He believes that you are born as an Individual with certain abilities that are unique and makes you, you. He believes that you are More than the Body and it is up to you to do well or not well within the capacity, opportunities and the abilities given you.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 02:43 PM
31. wow - put down that crack pipe.

Posted by: dan on December 22, 2009 02:46 PM
32. Pudge @ 28 re: Flmser. Don't ban him Pudge, we can ignore him just as easily. Anyway, I like seeing how a bigoted moron's mind works. Good insight on how to fight these little pustules in the real world.

Posted by: G Jiggy on December 22, 2009 02:52 PM
33. Flamer: the current R party has nothing in common with the party of 1800s.

Property rights, national security, civil liberty ... actually we have pretty much the same platform as they did. (But -- again -- I am the educated one here.)


the parties have pretty much flipped on the other points

False. Again, the GOP hasn't flipped on anything mentioned here. The GOP is, and has always been, a virulently pro-civil-rights party. There have been a few anomalies over the years, but those are obviously (well, to us educated folk) the exceptions.


I love what liberals have done to this country ---Rs/Cs are made to react in horror with any reference to racism. Ha ha! That is a sure sign of success...

Success at being a liar? ... you're proud of that?


I do agree it was off topic but not a lie.

False.


feel free to do the ban thing.

Done.


G Jiggy: he's said what he has to say. No need to let him continue to pollute the discussion.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 03:05 PM
34. Aw Gee Pudge. I wanted a whack a troll for Christmas. On that note Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everybody.

Posted by: Mike336 on December 22, 2009 03:26 PM
35. So is Christine going to break down my door and demand I register my guns?

Once again, Liberals know that all you have to do to stop gun crime is out of a sign banning it.

Posted by: TTTCOTTH on December 22, 2009 03:38 PM
36. I wonder if Senator Kohl-Welles remembers this little part of the Washington Constitution (article 1, section 24):

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.

Based upon the collective wisdom and insight of self-defense experts, I deem the best way to defend myself is with semi-automatic high capacity pistols and rifles. The State cannot impair that right to self-defense, per the Washington Constitution.

My guess is that she glosses over this part... Doesn't surprise this college educated, 6 figure earning, blue-State-living, church going firearm owner!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 03:57 PM
37. Actually, the current democrat party would be horse whipped en masse by it's 1800's forerunner.

This college graduated independent would rather dive head first into a pool of hydrochloric acid then vote for most D's in the legislature, and certainly none of the scum in the US Senate who sold us out on health Care socialization without a peep from the fringe-leftists infesting us here.

The clowns sponsoring this assault on our rights would be the first to beg me to pull my automatic (which looks very military, since it's a colt combat commander) and end any threat those less inclined to follow their fringe left views might be aiming at their kids or themselves.

Gotta wonder. We're in one of those VT classrooms, and you can hear the shots coming closer.

If I'm a student there, and I've broken the rules and brought my .45 on campus... and I used it to take that punk out, is it even money that the Kohl-Welles of the world would condemn me for breaking the rules, even though that decision saved lives?

And how much respect did the VT killer show for the anti-gun rules of that campus?

The same respect any criminal would show for this violation of my rights.

Those supporting this the hardest would be among those whining the loudest as they collapsed in their whining little liberal puddles, crying "save us, save us," to any one of us college educated, non-impoverished non-democrat veteran types with concealed weapons permits who would use said weapons to save their sorry asses.

Posted by: Hinton on December 22, 2009 04:21 PM
38. When someone has been banned it seems unfair to lambast them as they cannot defend themselves. I disagree totally with Flamer but shan't speak against him/her now that I know he/she has been handicapped; that would be akin to waterboarding without representation. :)

Posted by: Duffman on December 22, 2009 04:28 PM
39. Duffman: When someone has been banned it seems unfair to lambast them as they cannot defend themselves.

I could not care less.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 04:32 PM
40. Duffman wrote:

I disagree totally with Flamer but shan't speak against him/her now that I know he/she has been handicapped

Flamer was mentally handicapped before pudge banned him...;)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 04:33 PM
41. mike: what does that have to do with anything

Um, it was in direct response to another commenter. Try reading, it works!

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 04:33 PM
42. If you want a perfect example of poor reasoning ability just read Flamer (or Fismer). He makes a series of statements (I wouldn't call them facts) then concludes that without welfare or church handouts, gun sales would plummet. Now I'm not adverse to greatly reducing welfare but I'm a gun owner and I know a lot of other gun owners. I've never heard of anybody who bought a gun with welfare payments or church handouts. And I have a college education too.

Posted by: RBW on December 22, 2009 04:38 PM
43. @30 god has nothing to do with it. I'm not racist because humans deserve respect until they prove otherwise on an individual basis. I treat people equally for that reason alone, not because I fear going to hell or want to go heaven.

Posted by: blindman on December 22, 2009 04:50 PM
44. Happiness is warm "evil black rifle". Ecstasy is having several spares.

Posted by: deadwood on December 22, 2009 04:51 PM
45. Nice post pudge and EXCELLENT leed.

My RGR has been down recently and could use some good pub.

Pay heed to pudge and get your Christmas, Boxing Day, New Years gift before your rights are taken away!

And they'll take away your right to buy the scary looking ones first. Don't wait til next year!


Thanks!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 05:00 PM
46. Pudge makes a great point. The gun grabbers have likely never handled a firearm. My guess is they grew up in big cities and never even had a BB gun as a kid, (after all, "you'll shoot your eye out!"). Us rural kids all had BB guns, bows and arrows, and slingshots.

Anyone with even a passing understanding of firearms knows that one or two shots from nearly any gun can be fatal.

I have a 9-round little double-action 22 revolver that I can "rapid fire" . I can probably squeeze off all 9-shots in less than 20 seconds.

All guns are dangerous.

The sane questions is: are we going to start locking up the creeps that use guns to menace law abiding citizens? Whatever happened to the "Three Strikes You're Out" law we passed. No, liberals let violent criminals out onto the street continually. Convicted child rapists live in virtually every neighborhood. You can look it up. Murderers get maybe five years. It's insanity. What do liberals always want to do? Remove our protection from the criminals they routinely release who have no business in decent society.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 05:14 PM
47. mike: but the commenter never stated that everyone who inflates their net worth online to over $100k always votes D.

Yes, and no one ever implied he did. But if he is going to make dumb generalizations, it's reasonable to point out when they don't apply ... unless he is going to actually back up his generalizations with facts, AND link them with MORE facts to the topic at hand.


MikeBS: I have three Rugers. Good guns.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 05:15 PM
48. @45, blindman...The vast majority of Racists do not believe in GOD...Period! They think of themselves based on where they were born and their heritage as to who they are. They do not think of themselves as stand alone Individuals. They think of themselves as belonging to a nationality/heritage and therefore, think of themselves as part of a collective rather, than a stand alone, separate Individual. Get It? Perhaps, not...You're a Liberal.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 06:10 PM
49. I'd have to agree with Daniel about racism. Seems to me that believers in God are the least racist I have ever met. Conversely, uber educated liberals seem to me to be the most racist but not in an overt "KKK" type of way but most often in a smothering, benevolent way. Of course I have no hard facts to back this up but just an observation of almost 60 years on the planet. It never ceases to amaze me where you find ugly things like antisemitism, racism and bigotry. And it never ceases to amaze me who is calling the kettle black (thy name today is "Flmser")>

Posted by: G Jiggy on December 22, 2009 06:33 PM
50. G Jiggy, my experience with liberals reflects what you say. I've been snubbed and shunned by liberals I grew up with. If you no longer agree with them their heads explode. The mere mention that we watch Fox News causes gasps of horror from family and friends. So we wisely avoid political discussion and bite our tongues. Yes, I've seen the anti-semitic side to these people as well.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 06:52 PM
51. Excuse me idiots. Guns is what this thread is about. Are we going to protect the 2nd amendment or allow the gun grabbers to take them away?

Don't let the trolls steal the thread. Don't feed them. Keep on topic. And that means you too Pudge!

Posted by: deadwood on December 22, 2009 07:01 PM
52. Pretty interesting not a single of our resident leftists is supporting Senator Kohl-Welles...

Somehow Government always assumes that people will always obey the new laws enacted to stop the breaking of old laws. Does Senator Kohl-Welles' proposal address the existing magazines and firearms in the State? And what about individuals legally purchasing such items in Idaho or Oregon - is the Senator proposing roadblocks to search vehicles bringing them back?

This is simply a case of "OMG we gotta do SOMETHING!" reactionary, grab-the-headlines, appeal-to-the-passivists Government activity intended to make some people feel better, solve nothing, and impede the rights of law-abiding citizens (rights guaranteed by the State and Federal constitutions, I might add).

The voters of the 36th should be ashamed of their Senator and vote her out...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 07:19 PM
53. Hey, mike...You ignorant HOG! Racism and Nationalism are sometimes tied together. You heard of the Nazis haven't you? You heard of the Super Race haven't you? Yes, Liberals are far more prone to be Racists than, Conservatives. But..mike, you Simplistic DOLT, you're a Liberal who will never get it!

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 07:23 PM
54. @56 Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 07:19 PM,

"This is simply a case of "OMG we gotta do SOMETHING!" reactionary, grab-the-headlines, appeal-to-the-passivists Government activity"

Your mostly right there Dan, but you needn't worry. In the extremely unlikely event politicians of any stripe did enact some sort of restriction, the ship has long since sailed on enforcing it.

In the mean time, please heed pudge and purchase as many semi-auto guns and 30 round clips as you can possibly afford before the year ends.


ps. A stainless magazine for the owner of a 9mm makes a great stocking stuffer!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 07:39 PM
55. Why does it have to get so nasty? I don't feel like playing.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 07:44 PM
56. MikeBS,

Talk to Greg Nickels about that... Idiots seem to run rampant in the Seattle-based political circles.

I have plenty of 30 rounders for my 5.56mm rifle, and plenty of magazines for my pistols. However, I am considering a nice Saiga 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun and a few 20 shell drums.

And unlike pudge, I'm not a fan of Ruger; I consider them overpriced for what you get. I prefer my semi-autos from S&W (the Sigma series are a massive value) or from Kel-Tec (a great, Florida company). Revolvers from Taurus or S&W. The only Ruger I'd consider would be a 22/45 mk III, but it's pretty pricey compared to the Beretta NEOs and S&W 22A.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:00 PM
57. I sent a rather long and lengthy email to Senators Kohl, Kline and Rep Hunter addressing their vacuous remarks concerning military styled weapons. Go to their legislative bios and read up on these libtards- not one of them served in a law enforcement or military capacity in their careers- Kline and Kohl were rabble rouser community organizing activist lawyers; Hunter was a Microsquish exec. I pointed out to them that the four Lakewood PD officers and military personnel gunned down at Fort Hood were killed with pistols- something their retarded law would do nothing to combat. And yet, somehow this is supposed to be a legislative priority? Hey, how about strengthening the criminal code or using our tax dollars to help bolster police and sheriff's departments across the state? I asked SEN Kohl what kinds of weapons she would support keeping in the state, or allowing the unwashed masses to own. I don't expect an answer. Finally, if you check out Hunter's Legislative website, he states that his 3rd Legislative objective is to "get people to trust government again" (my paraphrasing). I asked him how the hell I can trust him when he doesn't trust me, a former military officer, to own or purchase this type of weapon. I'm sure the three have been working diligently on a response to my questions...
Guys and gals, this kind of legislative lunacy can get you killed if you happen to find yourself needing a firearm for protection. The cops are usually never around when you need them (because there are not enough of them!) and the bad guys will always have weapons. Why they think disarming you and I will end "mass murder" is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel on December 22, 2009 08:08 PM
58. Mike,

pudge: did you intentionally fail to mention that the SPD backs the bill?

The same SPD that supported Nickels' illegal ban of guns in Seattle parks and community centers? Yeah, that shows a real sense of rights of the individuals...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:11 PM
59. mike, Daniel - please consider pudge's head line seriously. It is obvious you both are angry. One of you may have at this moment enough guns to do you harm. Take this valuable time to build your own armory to protect yourself from undesirable elements and fight for freedom.

Don't laugh or take this lightly. It was only a few weeks ago when we read at comment #108
"we have a 12 gauge shotgun and a nice little revolver. I pray we won't ever have to use them.
Nuts like you are the reason we have them
"

And Bill.... that arsenal is hardly sufficient in times like these to, as you said at comment #116
"blow their damned heads off. I'm more than ready for them. They'll get what they deserve."

You're not ready!
Pick up a pair of SR9s for yourself and each member of the family. This low-maintenance, rugged and reliable handgun is the perfect gift of comfort and protection for the whole family.

As that liberal pinko foreigner said:
Happiness is a warm gun yeah!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 08:17 PM
60. Squirrel,

Actually, a few more dollars spent on modernizing equipment to not release monsters like Clemmons would have saved the lives of those four police officers. Gun laws would do nothing (he was a felon, already prohibited from carrying a firearm - and he was concealed carrying which is illegal without a permit which he did not have) to prevent this.

But that would be actually addressing the problem and leaving freedoms intact, and it doesn't seem as "we're doing something" in terms of media exposure, so that's what will happen. More gun bans.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:17 PM
61. mike, Daniel - please consider pudge's head line seriously. It is obvious you both are angry. One of you may have at this moment enough guns to do you harm. Take this valuable time to build your own armory to protect yourself from undesirable elements and fight for freedom.

Don't laugh or take this lightly. It was only a few weeks ago when we read at comment #108
"we have a 12 gauge shotgun and a nice little revolver. I pray we won't ever have to use them.
Nuts like you are the reason we have them
"

And Bill.... that arsenal is hardly sufficient in times like these to, as you said at comment #116
"blow their damned heads off. I'm more than ready for them. They'll get what they deserve."

You're not ready!
Pick up a pair of SR9s for yourself and each member of the family. This low-maintenance, rugged and reliable handgun is the perfect gift of comfort and protection for the whole family.

As that liberal pinko foreigner said:
Happiness is a warm gun yeah!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 08:21 PM
62. Dan, I like my Taurus revolver. Trigger pull is a little stiff but I actually like it that way.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2009 08:23 PM
63. The SPD is an enemy of gun rights and backs the unconstitutional Seattle gun ban. If the SPD is ever for anything concerning guns, then it's probably a bad idea.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 08:38 PM
64. Keep your eyes on State Senator Adam Kline.

The more you see, the less you'll like.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 22, 2009 08:40 PM
65. I have a S&W .38 and a Ruger .38. S&W cost more. I like the Ruger better.

Posted by: pudge on December 22, 2009 08:42 PM
66. @58, mike...Are you implying that Nazis were Right Wing Conservatives? What a uneducated DOLT you are. Nazi, stands for Nationalist Socialist Party. Try to remember, Socialist are Liberals.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 08:47 PM
67. Mike,

If you actually read what I've posted here, you know I also criticize Mayor Nickels and those who support his illegal and unconstitutional ban. And I'll criticize anyone who attempts to restrict our State and Federally guaranteed rights to carry firearms in our personal defense.

Senator Kohl-Welles earns special attention because she's a media-whore who loves to make big splashes on meaningless bills in an attempt to curry favor with the extreme left. Not only is she ignorant of basic Constitutional rights, she's stupid enough to trumpet her ignorance all over the media. She deserves extra scorn.

I take it you also join me in that criticism or Senator Kohl-Welles, her accomplices in the State legislature, Mayor Nickels, and the SPD?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 08:49 PM
68. If you want to make a loved one happy this Christmas, consider giving the Ruger GP100.
It offers Strength, Simplicity and Ruggedness in a .357 Magnum. These double-action revolvers are among the most comfortable shooting .357 Magnum revolvers. Their rugged, medium-sized frame and cushioned grip system permit repeated firings of powerful .357 Magnum cartridges with minimal shooter fatigue.

But then again, nothing says I love you on Christmas morning like a snub nose.357 Magnum. Among the most powerful small-frame revolvers on the market, these gems boast the strength to handle the powerful .357 Magnum and .327 Federal cartridges in a controllable, small-framed double-action revolver.
You Can Never Be Too Prepared.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 08:52 PM
69. @70 pudge on December 22, 2009 08:42 PM said:
"I like the Ruger better"

Folks, you heard it from our poster!

Please, don't be the only commenter on SP not to give the gift of blue steel protection this holiday season.

And for goodness sakes, don't overpay!
Ruger offers you rugged reliable firearms at a very reasonable price.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 09:04 PM
70. "i honestly have no desire to live next to someone owning 20x more guns than i do"

Wooops! Let's not argue about closing the barn door after the horse has left the county.

mike, your fears are reasonable. And right now someone whose possession of another gun would make you 21x more uncomfortable is picking one up.

But at the end of the day, the solution to the problem of the other guy having 20x more guns than you, is for you to buy
GUNS, GUNS, GUNS for Christmas!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 09:31 PM
71. mike...On what basis do you call me anti-Semitic? Remember, you're a Liberal and Liberals LIE even, without cause. Liberals like to LIE. Of course, it is well known that you are disrespected en mass on SP. Show where anybody agreed with you. Even other Liberals don't agree with you. You are such a, Sorry Loser.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 09:31 PM
72. mike,

Then I assume you're fine with Senator Kohl-Welles position on this issue. Fair enough, you can be on the wrong side, along with Mayor Nickels, Senator Kline, Rep. Hunter, the fools at Washington Ceasefire, and the Seattle Police Department.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 09:37 PM
73. Reasonable people can disagree, but the single solution to this debate is to buy guns this Christmas.

If you are against the proposed ban, buying a few more guns makes it that much harder the proposed legislation is ever enforceable.

If you are for the legislation you can't be too concerned about your self protection from Conspiracy Nuts and Stormfront members.

Guns for Peace this Christmas!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 22, 2009 09:50 PM
74. Yeah Right,mike...I called you an Ignorant HOG and that makes me anti-Semitic? The reason I asked you if you ever heard of the Nazi is because, you said I was confusing Racism with Nationalism. I told you that Racism and Nationalism are sometimes tied together like...Have you ever heard of the Nazis and the so-called Super Race as an example of Racism and Nationalism tied together...Get it? Probably not. You want to feel abused and picked on so, you don't have to answer for your egregious and stupid comments. I happen to have Jewish Heritage so, don't give me that Phony BS about my being anti-Semitic. Also, I have had it out with pudge on calling Liberals Nazis. Because, there are many Liberal Jews, it was too much for pudge to digest. I could go into further detail to support my position and will if asked.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 10:04 PM
75. mike,

fair enough, i'd consider that a decent group to be constitutionally upheld with.

Unfortunately the State Attorney General and the US Supreme Court disagree with your claim of constitutionality...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 11:15 PM
76. "pudge: did you intentionally fail to mention that the SPD backs the bill?"

Just curious--how exactly did they arrive at that determination? Was it a) a vote of SPD officers b) a consensus decision after extensive & open debate c) a prounouncement that came down from the politically appointed chief?

Rank & file cops are generally pro-gun; they were largely responsible for the defeat of I-676. I suspect I know the answer, but you tell me....

Posted by: travis t on December 23, 2009 12:19 AM
77. MikeBS: you seem to be trying to make a point ... but you're ... not actually making a point.

I was away from my computer last night due to lack of electricity to my home (car hit a pole, I think), and I was not able to delete some posts that should have been, especially from Daniel and mike.

I won't go back and remove them now, they've been up too long, but I won't hesitate to remove others.

Posted by: pudge on December 23, 2009 05:03 AM
78. travis t: it wasn't a vote, no, it was the higher-ups who decided to make it SPD policy. And I was (as I presume Dan was) speaking to the higher-ups and their policies, not to the officers. The people who make the policies for the SPD have proven themselves hostile to constitutionally guaranteed, legislatively asserted, gun rights.

Posted by: pudge on December 23, 2009 05:07 AM
79. @85 travis t on December 23, 2009 12:19 AM,

You are right. The Seattle Police Department policy is that of politically appointed officials who are repeatedly elected in to office by large majorities of voters. And other than being exactly like the employer you work for or anybody you know works for, the employees don't get to democratically determine company policies and positions.

What is to be done??

Time to Fight For Freedom in your work place!
Buy yourself a Gun for Christmas and take it to work for show and tell.
Show it to your fascist boss and tell him/her there are going to be some changes in 2010!


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 23, 2009 05:14 AM
80. @86 pudge on December 23, 2009 05:03 AM,

No, not making a point. Supporting yours emphatically. Give a Gun for Christmas.
I might add, that for our Jewish friends, Hanukkah and its celebration of revolt is another excellent opportunity to give the gift of lead spitting peace and security.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 23, 2009 05:27 AM
81. MikeBS: The Seattle Police Department policy is that of politically appointed officials who are repeatedly elected in to office by large majorities of voters.

Oops. Try again?


No, not making a point

Stop lying.

Posted by: pudge on December 23, 2009 05:58 AM
82. Rosbach article in the Times:
"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," [Kohl-Welles] said.
She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Kohl-Welles had a moment of telling the truth when she said "what we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of...weapons in this state". That is the true mission of these anti-constitution zealots- a total ban on any form of protection of any kind.

Feel free to contact one or more of their offices to express your concern for their lack of understanding of your constitutional rights.

Sen. Adam Kline D-37
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7688
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles D-36
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7670
Seattle Office: (206) 281-6854
kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Ross Hunter D-48
District office: (425) 453-3064
Olympia office: (360) 786-7936
hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov


Posted by: Rick D. on December 23, 2009 06:01 AM
83. Thanks Rick D, that's productive - will do. :)

Posted by: Duffman on December 23, 2009 06:07 AM
84. In order to help Obama stimulate the economy, I bought my daughter a SIG/Sauer P232 for Christmas.

If the stuff hits the fan, and I pray it does not, you're going to wish you had purchased a serious battle rifle, enough ammo for it (serious oxymoron -- you never will have enough ammo), and went to an appleseed shoot (www.appleseedinfo.org) to learn how to shoot it. Now... every one of you hop over to that site and sign up for an appleseed near you. It will be the best, most entertaining and even educational two days you ever spent.

Posted by: DDS -- NRA Life Member on December 23, 2009 06:19 AM
85. This bill will not pass.

By the way - while they are busy restricting and dminishing the 2nd Amendment to a pile of rubble. Their next stop most certainly will be to silence critics and restrict the first Amendment.

Posted by: Jughead on December 23, 2009 06:28 AM
86. Again: trolling, and talk of race unrelated to guns, are both off-topic.

Posted by: pudge on December 23, 2009 06:59 AM
87. Amazing how uninformed these people can be. It's sad that they are working to erode the very right that helps them be free.

Posted by: Adam on December 23, 2009 07:20 AM
88. force current owners to submit to background checks

I thought one had to undergo a background check when purchasing a weapon. If not, why did I have to fill out a form and wait 10 days before I could pick up my weapon?

Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 23, 2009 07:40 AM
89. Obi-Wan,

Because as we saw with the monster Clemmons case, the State's background check is oh-so-much better than the Federal 4473 checks! After all, the State kept him locked up, and he never possessed a firearm (concealed at that) in violation of State and Federal law.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 23, 2009 08:01 AM
90. @88 "You are right. The Seattle Police Department policy is that of politically appointed officials who are repeatedly elected in to office by large majorities of voters. And other than being exactly like the employer you work for or anybody you know works for, the employees don't get to democratically determine company policies and positions."

So to say that "SPD backs the bill" really just means 'The mayor backs the bill.' Why not just put it that way in the first place? It's a simpler, more economical, and more straitforward way of expressing the thought.

Posted by: travis t on December 23, 2009 08:05 AM
91. Obi-Wan: you might have bought the weapon elsewhere or before checks were mandatory or in a private transaction.

Posted by: pudge on December 23, 2009 08:27 AM
92. travis,

But it doesn't play on the fears and emotions of people, so we cannot say that. Much better to think that the police are 100% behind it, cowering in fear from all those felons with high powered fully automatic assault rifles.

If you just say "the mayor and his lone political appointment wants it", well, how do you make a big heart-tugging plea from that? I mean - think of the lobbyists... Won't somebody think of the lobbyists?!?!?!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 23, 2009 08:54 AM
93. @93, DDS...You are absolutely Right! When the Big Boys come to get your guns, you are going to be at a Laughable disadvantage with your Sigs, Taurus, S&W, Rugers, etc. Yes, what is needed is for the populace to equip themselves with serious accurate long guns.

Posted by: Daniel on December 23, 2009 09:10 AM
94. California has some of these dumb laws and they have proven to NOT work.

Why does this state keep trying to mimic California? California is an utter failure. We should be doing the exact opposite of everything they have done.

Posted by: VInce on December 23, 2009 09:21 AM
95. I bought a Christmas gift for my son yesterday, a Ruger 10/22 (semi-automatic .22 caliber carbine). I specifically bought it instead of a bolt-action rifle as I had originally planned on buying him. Just doing my part to support the local Stimulus Bill (sponsored by Kohl, Kline, and Hunter) to help out gun shop owners this Christmas.

Posted by: 2nd Amendment Supporter on December 23, 2009 02:41 PM
96. So a comment from a lawmaker was something like if it's used in war it's bad... (OK, I'm paraphrasing). So, now what? They want my sporterized 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser? It was used in a war.

Posted by: boy howdy on December 23, 2009 05:59 PM
97. This thread is about as dead as the 230th murder victim of 2009 - as of today - in my hometown of Baltimore, MD.

What's my point? Just that Maryland has similiar restrictions on firearm ownership compared to what these 3 dunces are proposing.

Yet 230 murders, how could that be? Could it be that criminals don't care about laws, and stuff?
Nah, gotta be the guns.

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on December 23, 2009 07:08 PM
98. You really must wonder where these state officials went to school at? And have they ever lived in the State of Washington?

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington


Posted by: Liberty Bell on December 24, 2009 06:50 AM
99. Liberty Bell...The Politicians know what they are doing. They are the Government and we, the Taxpayers, are the People. They want total control over the People and safety from People. For it is said: Where, Government is afraid of the People, you have Liberty. Where, the People are afraid of the Government, you have Tyranny.

Posted by: Daniel on December 24, 2009 07:09 AM
100. THis is nuts!!!! Reminds me of Natzi Germany. First they took away guns then other rights.

Posted by: Laurie on December 24, 2009 07:18 AM
101. These anti-Gun Laws placed upon the Citizenry, are Acts of Tyranny upon the Rights of the Citizenry.

Posted by: Daniel on December 24, 2009 07:18 AM
102. You really must wonder where these state officials went to school at?

Actually,the institutions of lower learning is where most of these state officials' views were molded and formed. They consider the US Constitution an archaic document not applicable in modern times because that is what their ivory tower professor spoon fed them in class. It's only getting worse with each passing year too. If they can't go after the guns, they'll go after the ammunition the gun uses. They don't really care about things like the constitutionality of such legislation as long as their short sighted ideological goals are met. Fragile egos need soothing.

Posted by: Rick D. on December 24, 2009 07:23 AM
103. These factious, flatulence Politicians view the Constitution as their Enemy. It is a barrier to obtaining their complete Freewill over the Governed. This has always been True with the vast majority of the Politicians. Our Greatest Enemy is...Big Government.

Posted by: Daniel on December 24, 2009 08:00 AM
104. Pudge, I bought my gun in Renton in 2004. Don't know what laws were in effect then, just know I had to fill out a stupid form and wait somewhere around 10 days to pick it up.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 25, 2009 07:53 AM
105. Obi-Wan, right, just saying that some people have NOT gone through background checks. Anyone in a long time who has bought a gun from a dealer has.

Also, in this state if you have a concealed carry permit (from local police or sheriff department), you have no waiting period. Otherwise it's 10 days.

Posted by: pudge on December 25, 2009 08:22 AM
106. The communist/socialist Kohl-Welles, who once appeared in front of a picture of Stalin on TVW, has been drinking her own bathwater again.

From my cold dead hands, bitch.

Posted by: JoeBandMember on December 25, 2009 03:05 PM
107. @111 Rick D. on December 24, 2009 07:23 AM,

"You really must wonder where these state officials went to school at?"

Irony is as delicious as Plum Pudding on Christmas morning.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 26, 2009 07:52 AM
108. MikeBS: Irony

I think you don't know what that word means.

Posted by: pudge on December 26, 2009 07:56 AM
109. Mike, give me your address and I'll bring a sign over for your front yard that says you have no guns in your house. I'll even pay for it. Since you think it should be public knowledge, you can go first.

Posted by: mark on December 27, 2009 11:13 AM
110. Its getting late on this thread... but here is my input.

I think that the state Hunters Safety Course should be required for teenagers. and politicians. and college professors.

Posted by: teapartygrandma on December 27, 2009 02:20 PM
111. "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?"
Did the framers envision MSNBC, the AP, the NY Times?
For self protection, they made it so we could have the same rifles the military had.
Comments from Welles???

Posted by: PC on December 28, 2009 07:02 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?