Let's Put an Assault-Weapons Ban on the Ballot

Comments

1
I'm in.
2
Amen.
3
!!
4
Hey Dan, considering that "assault weapons" make up a miniscule portion of firearms-related violence (less than 3% of all homicides, close to 0% of suicides), other than pissing off "conservatives", what exactly do you hope to accomplish with one?

If your concern is mass shootings, I'll point out that out of 60-some-odd mass shootings in the last 30 years, only 2 would have had a lower death toll if the shooters had been limited to semi-automatic handguns, and none of them would have had a lower death toll if the shooters had been limited to "non-assault" semi-automatic weapons.

Why not pursue some of the effective ideas for reducing firearms violence that have been proposed right here on SLOG?
5
I'd be for it. And let's throw an income tax initiative in while we're at it. It's still a tough sell, but there's a lot of potential if you talk about it and it's time to get the ball rolling on that.

For such a consistently blue state, our state Democrats are a disgraceful, pathetic bunch of wimps. (Yeah, yeah, they passed gay marriage, but, on the whole, they tend to govern like Republican interests are a force to be reckoned with.)
6
Sure, why not? Just think of all the millions it would drag into local signage and advertising business once the NRA decides it's sufficient threat to dump on.
7
There's just one small problem: Define "assault weapon."
8
reporting for duty!
9
#7 That big old purse at my side is an assault weapon I Use when I feel assaulted! Come near me You big hunk of Manhandler and It'll start swinging and I don't care what I hit!
10
Saturday Night Specials are more often used in crime than even high-capacity Glocks. Going to ban them, too? You'd have a better shot at legalizing the rape of prepubescent cub scouts. (You know, that other fantasy of the Stranger.)
11
Attn: Dan, Dom, Chicago Fan, et al. Been reading the comments on all the SLOG gun-control posts?

Notice how even the pro-gun-control bleeding-heart liberals have noted that an assault-weapons ban really won't do much to curb gun violence?

I'm on your side, but an AWB is not going to accomplish much. Close the goddamn gun-show loophole already. Create a registry for and a limit on bullet sales. Those'll do far more than an AWB ever will.

Although, at least if you can get an AWB to pass that'll show the gun nuts that times really are changing and the rest of us have had fucking enough.
12
How about for the slogan:
"Putting the 'regulation' into the 'well regulated miltia'.
13
TOTALLY IN!
Let's get it done.
When and where do we start organizing?
14
Dan ...

I would be against a ban ... but I know gun owners who are responsible who will never vote for this if it outright bans anything. After discussing options with them we agreed on the following:

Better ideas for a "Safer Washington" initiative.

1. close the gunshow loophole
2. REQUIRE trigger locks for all firearms
3. REQUIRE gun safes for all firearms
4. Fines if robbed and access to firearms was not prevented by item 3
5. Give local jurisdictions the ability to create limited, specified zones where firearms could be prohibited (like the Seattle Center)
6. (optional) require some form of insurance (like car insurance) ... own a gun ... have insurance to pay for any/all damage they might cause to third parties. (this can be used to fund other aspects of the initiative like the trigger locks).

Something like this would most likely be agreeable to most responsible gun owners and those generally opposed to them in general
15
@14: Yeah, sure, but how do you REQUIRE trigger locks and gun safes to be used? We REQUIRE a valid driver's license and proof of insurance to operate a motor vehicle, but the roads are full of uninsured folks driving on suspended licenses.

Personally, I'd ban all semi-automatic weapons. Have fun with with pump-action shotguns and bolt-action rifles.
16
100% of those called took the survey? Impossible.
17
4

gosh, there wouldn't be anything for danny to wank off to in THAT....
18
Getting congress to repeal the gun manufacturer immunity would be an even better first step.

I am in.
19
I think it's a good idea except the part about throwing kids in jail. I just don't believe more incarceration is going to help much, we already lock up a lot of juveniles. So who's going to gather the signatures? Or do you really think we can get the state senate to stop obstructing on this?
20
Last time a gun grabber initiative was on the ballot. The GOP took over the State house.
21
@4, did you read Dan's whole post? Closing the gunshow loophole would be HUGE. That's probably the most important thing we could do.

I would also hold gun owners responsible for guns used by anyone in their home in a crime. That would lock those guns down if they knew that they could be sued in civil court.

I'm totally in.
22
Please get it on the ballot.
23
@7

Don't worry, skeeter, definitions will be clear when it counts.
24
"The poll found 66 percent support (54 percent strongly) for banning semi-automatic assault weapons, ..."

Dan, do you have an example of a non-semi-automatic assault weapon?
If you do not then you have just highlighted the problem with this approach.

You'll need to write something that can withstand the most basic questions of Constitutionality.
And the first step of that is being able to define what you are trying to ban.
The second step is knowing what the SCOTUS has already ruled on the items in the first step.
25
I'm in.
26
Let's do this.
27
@24
Thanks, attorneys will look over and edit the language, so don't worry.
28
Gun control will be for democrats in the next election what rape was for republicans in the last.

You dumbfucks are delivering power to the GOP over your frothy emotionalism and for nothing that would have real affects on the problems of gun violence.
29
Last time I was at a gun show in WA you had to have a criminal background check in order to buy or sell a firearm.

30
An Asshole Ban would be more effective. Let's ban assholes! ARE YOU IN?
31
How about we ban idiots for not educating themselves, Assault weapon is a term coined by the media in 1986....stop wastign our tax money on your ballot initiatives and enforce the laws that exist. Or do you think criminals are suddenly going to follow any new laws, you know like they followed the ones that made them criminals to begin with.
32
Dan loves assholes too much. He eats them as well as brags on how well his penis fits in one. Trust me on this, you don't want a butt plug expert who advocates non monogamy spearheading this.
33
@32 - there's a hook in your mouth.
34
$tiktok, driving is a privalge that you EARN, The RIGHT to Bear Arms is a RIGHT...educate yourself on the difference and why it is required to take the steps one does to obtain a drivers liscense...
35
Dan Savage: Loudly denounces (rightfully so) having his minority rights to a vote; eagerly promotes doing the same to others. You're one hell of guy Dan.
36
Ban nothing. Assault weapons have minimal effect on actual safety while turning even reasonable gun enthusiasts into rabid, raving, ranting lunatics. Not enough benefit to justify the harm to the overall discourse.
Require universal background checks and licensing that includes a comprehensive gun safety course as a first step. Enforce the shit out of those measures (which all but the craziest of the crazies agree with). Assess and proceed from there if/as needed.
37
You want to ban, register, force locks and safes? Have none of you read the Heller v. DC ruling or the Mcdonald v. Chicago ruling? Requiring a locked pistol is unconstitutional and I would bet that the right argument, which Alan Gura is very good at, trying to require a lock on a rifle would be too. You want a gun owner to pay for insurance on a constitutional right? LOL good luck with that one. You gun grabbers need to all move to California, New York, or Illinois where all your bleeding heart liberal friends live.
38
There's a huge difference between affirming rights for same sex couples and stripping rights from law abiding citizens.
39
I like the idea of putting universal background checks and mandatory licensing on the ballot. That would make a difference!
40
In order to prevent homo child rape, I think we should do a background check for anyone buying condoms OR lube.

Innocent people have nothing to fear. It wouldn't effect your family planning.
41
@ 37 WA is just as liberal as those states, if not more.
42
Please demonstrate how the possession of an assault weapon is a "right" guaranteed the the U.S. Constitution.

Get your constitutional law on, bitches!!!!
43
"I'd be for it. And let's throw an income tax initiative in while we're at"

So you can get bitched slapped twice?
44
"@ 37 WA is just as liberal as those states, if not more."

Right, which us why only 33% voted for an income tax and 67% supported Tim Eyman's last initiative. WA is a moderate state: We really don't care if you wanna take it up the ass as long as you keep taxes low.
45
#42

Actually, since its your retarded idea, prove to me that its not.

The constitution stipulates that since an ar15 is the conventional arm of the military, it's my right to own one. SCOTUS also says that a ban can only apply to rare and exceedingly dangerous weapons. An ar15 IS not remotely rare nor exceedingly dangerous.

So again, it's your job to prove that it's NOT my right.
46
I recently learned from an Unbalanced that "well regulated Militia" means well calibrated and functioning as expected. Based on his other commentary during that discussion "well regulated" applies to the object (the gun) as well as militias of both the individual and the group. Though I'll admit he wasn't exactly clear on what was expected to be "well regulated" that is well calibrated and functioning as expected.

That said based on my Unbalanced friend's definitions, @14 suggestions would be constitutional. Perhaps not as 14 wrote them but a bit of lawyerly wording yeah it would fit my friend's definition.

In fact I think a bit could be added concerning the calibration and functioning of the gun itself under my Unbalanced friend's definitions.
47
A non semi-auto assault weapon example would be an RPG or rocket propelled grenade launcher, Which Uncle Wayne thinks is just dandy to own.

The SCOTUS has ruled, majority opinion written by rabid teabagger and Pope admirer Antonin Scalia, that it is perfectly constitutional for congress to ban types of guns, they just can't ban all guns. Is Scalia a gungrabber?

Assault weapons are weapons designed for military use for the purpose of assaulting an enemy. They are not designed for defensive tactics. The entire purpose if the weapon is to lay down suppressive fire by filling the air with as much lead as possible as fast as possible. For self defense, Biden is right, at home a shotgun is your best tool for the job. The differences between what the military uses and what you buy at Wal-mart are minor enough to not matter. That Wal-mart special can be converted easily to exactly meet military specs.

GOPers in some red state have introduced legislation to make it a felony for a legislator to propose any kind of gun control law. So much for the NRA claim that the 2nd protects the other rights in the constitution. Kill the 1st to protect the 2nd ? Which is next, outlaw voting so no gun control laws can be passed? No right to peaceably assemble to protest gun violence?

Tax the hell outta all semi-autos and all magazines in excess of 6 rounds and all ammo that is not a shotgun shell and larger than a ,22 short. That leaves hunters with their sport weapons and shotguns for home protection. Everything else costs you a shitload. The rich get to keep their semi-autos which the GOP should love since rich people deserve more. Throw in mandatory liability insurance coverage on all guns as well.
48
I'm all for it. Gun show loophole first. Magazine size next. Then assault weapons. And trigger locks. But why stop there?
49
@45:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

..."well regulated"? What does phrase imply? Unrestricted access to weapons? A preclusion of civil oversight? The "right" to own an AR-15?
50
Could we add a provision that fluency in at least two languages should be a requirement for carrying a handgun. Anyone two stupid to learn Spanish really shouldn't be allowed to won a gun. It's a very easy language to learn. Most US citizens speak it.
51
I would be more than happy to help collect signatures to get this on the ballot. I bet Tim Eyeman won't help though.
52
Please tell us what measures some additional law will put forth to make sure criminals follow said law.
Do you see the problem with that sentence?
53
@49 well according to my Unbalanced friend it means a bunch of random sentences from the 18th century without out context, as interpreted by a 21st century gentleman, to mean "calibrated and functioning as expected".

From there it gets unclear as to whether it is the arms themselves we need to insure are well calibrated and functioning as expected or the militia. I'm still not sure what "militia" means but I'm confidenpt my Unbalanced friend will let me know.

I'll pass it on when I find out.
54
I read recently that only 2% of gun-related homicides in the US are committed with assault weapons. It's handguns that are the problem, and the best way to check their proliferation is mandatory background checks and registration, maybe throw in mandatory liability insurance for a kicker (with NO grandfathering in of existing weapons -- you want to hold on to your piece, you better get insurance). And of course transporting a firearm into the state without getting paper on it would be verboten. I imagine that within a year of implementation, the homicide rate here in Washington would decline precipitously.

I'm willing to bet you could put together a referendum with all these elements that could get the job done. You could also take it on piecemeal, the way Republicans have so burdened abortion providers out there in the ugly states as to make abortion clinics evaporate.
55
#50 - what the fuck are you talking about, and what planet do you live on? Most US citizens speak English. Most US citizens do not speak Spanish. Get a grip on reality.
56
54 is onto something. Why not learn for our GOP brethren on how one goes about denying a protected right through zoning laws and health department regulations and building codes. Any gun vendor must meet zoning regs such as no gun sales within 5 miles of a school, public or private. No gun sales after 1800hrs or before 6pm. All gun vendors must show customers a video of the bodies of the Aurora and Sandyhook victims. Averting the eyes at all and you are denied purchase. Also every customer must submit to a rectal exam using the barrel of a bushmaster to search out intestinal polyps. Gun vendors must carry a billion dollar insurance policy and be liable for how every gun from his store is used for 20 years after purchase.

There are all kinds of creative ways we can make the right to own guns more trouble than its worth. Just like the anti-choice crowd do to women's right to control their own bodies. As the esteemed Job creator Mitt Romney says, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
57
Looks like Dan's recommendation has followed the predictable path.

So it's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!

Today's winning picks are:

Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
The NRA!

Beat a straw man for big bonus points!
58
"Putting something on the ballot and voting sure beats marching in circles carrying signs."

I agree, but carrying signs is also a good complementary strategy if you can get any media coverage because people are more likely to think about stuff they see covered in the media.
59
@9

And there are currently nine states with various different assault weapons bans. Apparently definition isn't all that much of a hurdle.
60
You can ban guns. You will not be able to ban guns from a government that's been purchased by corrupt central bankers, who likely interested in "disappearing" citizens who do not follow the Fabian socialist/communitarian social engineering.

Forgot history? How many countries has this already happened in? Oh my, you forgot already?
61
"Anyone two stupid to learn Spanish really shouldn't be allowed to won a gun. It's a very easy language to learn. "

...because Spanish only comes in handy when you get hit by an uninsured driver, have to explain you want your door jams cleaned or about to get carjacked.
62
Best idea ever. Gun control, an issue that divides Democrats while uniting Republicans.
63
While the concept of dealing with crime is wonderful, you are barking up the wrong tree for a variety of reasons.

10 USC 311 details the militia of the United States. There are two portions of the militia, the "organized" militia, which is the National Guard, and the "unorganized" militia, which is every other adult male in the US between the ages of 17 and 45. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1…

In the landmark decision US v Miller (1939) 307 US 174 the Supreme Court said "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi…

In order to comply with the law and the Supreme Court, it would seem to me that every adult male in the US SHOULD have an AR style weapon in his home, to be ready to appear bearing an arm of the kind in common use.

64
While the concept of dealing with crime is wonderful, you are barking up the wrong tree for a variety of reasons.

10 USC 311 details the militia of the United States. There are two portions of the militia, the "organized" militia, which is the National Guard, and the "unorganized" militia, which is every other adult male in the US between the ages of 17 and 45. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1…

In the landmark decision US v Miller (1939) 307 US 174 the Supreme Court said "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi…

In order to comply with the law and the Supreme Court, it would seem to me that every adult male in the US SHOULD have an AR style weapon in his home, to be ready to appear bearing an arm of the kind in common use.

65
How about a requirement that only military vets are allowed to own military style weapons. That should weed out all those wanna-be's who like to think themselves to be tough guys who will defend against take-overs by tyrants, yet avoid serving in uniform like the goddamn plague. You know, like all those neo-cons with multiple deferments who like to send our kids to die for Raytheon and McDonald Douglas. Like those fat-assed preppers that are all the rage on cable teevee these days. Like Paul Ryan and Mark Rubio and Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal. By the way, do you think Wayne LaPierre ever served in a combat unit?
66
What is proposed here, is turning a huge chunk of the population into criminals. Anyone here, recall from civics (do you even know what civics is?), what happened the last time a prohibition of a major category of items with strong consumer interest was banned? The technology for home production of weapons is available, rapidly improving and decreasing in price. Create the incentive, and further development will accelerate. Frankly, as a pro2A advocate, I find the implications disturbing.

1: Criminals ignore the law. Outlawing firearms will create a huge underground weapons production industry, in direct consequence of turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
2: Organized criminals will attempt to control the underground market. When weapons are made in defiance of the law, the makers will have zero restraint with respect to producing REAL assault weapons, such as machine guns, sub-machine guns, rocket launchers, light mortars, grenades and satchel charges.
4: The bulk of such production will occur in areas with high concentrations of population as that is where the majority of home based machinery and 3D printers exist, and a large minority of consumers live.
5: Look at the FBI Crime Statistic Reports. It is clear that those few , but major, municipalities that severely limit firearms possession also have the highest violent crime rates. Violent criminals who survive through their criminal activity are far less inhibited when they know their victims are less likely to be armed. The FBI reports allow the figures to broken down to local legal jurisdictions and neighborhoods. The irony is that the Stranger is based in just such a locality. Said locality has a much lower violent crime rate than DC, NYC, LA or Chicago. If such a ban occurs, the injury and death rate from violence will rapidly go up in the very areas where most Stranger readers reside. The cops can not, will not and are not required, to protect individuals from violent crime, unless they are incidentally present. Having worked in prison health care for several years l know, from numerous conversations, that "professional" criminals are very much in favor of firearms bans. As it is their livlihood, they favor measures that make their "work" safer. The only complaint was that the cost of the guns they illeaglly obtain will go up.

I will entertain well considered and thought out responses. The usual name calling, useless vitriol and irrational BS will be ignored. The 1st Amendment applies here. The right to free speech includes the right to ignore free speech.
67
I have toed the line on many liberal issues here in WA. I voted for gay marriage, for pot legalization, and in the past I even voted for Obama in 2008. Frankly I'm sick of this shit from you guys. You're cool with attacking the rights of a huge segment of the population, which includes a lot of gun-owning liberals, just because you've bought the BS that all gun owners are right-wing Christian republicans.

I'm tired of all the big talk here. Quit being pussies about it and put the initiative on the ballot. You will lose, and you'll lose because a ton of democrats in WA don't even come close to agreeing with you. Some of the biggest gun collectors I know are liberals, and they will vote your asses down in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter what else we all agree on.

The reason the legislature "won't do anything" isn't because they've been bought by the NRA. It's because WA residents have lobbied the shit out of them, demonstrated at Olympia by the thousands, and they KNOW it's a losing proposition for both D and R politicians.

Washington liberals who push for more gun control, more laws, more governmental control over people's rights, are retarded hypocrites.
68
There's an issue with the so-called gun show "loophole".... it doesn't really exist. A vast majority of sellers at a gun show are already FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealers which are required to do a background check anyways. As a matter of fact, I can't recall where I've seen the statistics, but a Department of Justice review of the matter looking at incarcerated criminals of violent crime involving guns found that only about 4% obtained their gun at a gun show, and only about 20% of that was from an unlicensed dealer (for those that aren't savvy with math, that's LESS than 1% of ALL gun-involved violent crime). The vast majority obtained their weapons through some form or another of legal transfer.

The biggest issue is individuals that are at risk of violence don't have help (usually mental health) available to them to defuse their risk before it becomes a tragedy. Let's work on something like that instead
69
@65
The irony is that the Obama administration is targeting veterans with proposals to vett their medical records in order to limit firearms possession by veterans. Seems the administration is afraid of veterans. Hmmmm.
70
being in the militia used to have duties involved, mainly controlling slaves. i'd like to see it have duties again.

oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
71
@54
"I imagine that within a year of implementation, the homicide rate here in Washington would decline precipitously."
I get the idea. I appreciate that the people who publish and read The Stranger, desire to live in a safer community. Unfortunately, the FBI Crime Statistics Reports make it very clear that communities with strong gun control laws suffer the highest rates of violent crime. The ultimate irony is that it is the poorest of us, and ehtnic/racial minorities, who suffer the most from gun control.
72


What I find most disturbing is what this gun-worship says about this country's values: The interpretation of what is written in our constitution to mean the protection of what amounts to someone's 'hobby' (collecting guns, shooting at targets for fun, shooting at animals), and that that is SO paramount and of such critical importance that it trumps my basic human right to not have my five year old mass-murdered.

A fucking hobby vs a 20 slaughtered five year olds.

Yes. Let's make this backwards, wrongheaded, neanderthal worship of, and masturbation over this needless hobby as expensive, and purposefully hassle and obstacle-ridden as obtaining an abortion.


73
@71
"Unfortunately, the FBI Crime Statistics Reports make it very clear that communities with strong gun control laws suffer the highest rates of violent crime."

Chicago is an excellent example.
They have very strict gun laws in Chicago.
We have very lax gun laws in Seattle.
Chicago has far more gun-related violence than Seattle.

Therefore, it would appear that there is at least one unidentified factor that is causing the discrepancy.
74
@70

'oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:'
You might consider reviewing your post, in particular section b(2):
...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Essentially that means every male between the ages of 17 nd 45, and volunteers. There was a time when he social standard was mostly in compliance with the militia law. The bulk of military power was in the control of the people, at the local level of governance, and not the federal government.
75
@70

'oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:'
You might consider reviewing your post, in particular section b(2):
...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Essentially that means every male between the ages of 17 nd 45, and volunteers. There was a time when the social standard was mostly in compliance with the militia law. The bulk of military power was in the control of the people, at the local level of governance, and not the federal government.
76
@74
I think he was trying to point out that women who are not in the National Guard would, under a strict reading of just that section, not be allowed to own guns as part of the "unorganized militia".

Meanwhile, completely skipping over the section that reads:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So while a strict reading of just that section could be used to show that women were not part of the "unorganized militia" it would require a completely different reading to exclude women from "the people".

Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
77
@72.
Your irritation is wrongly placed. I get that the murder of children (or anyone for that matter) is unacceptable. However, you are missing the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was purposely designed to protect the Constitution, and thus the people, from the predations of tyrants.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
78
@76;
I see that now. I find it odd this issue has not been addressed, given the recent moves by the Obama administration to allow women to function in all military combat roles.
79
@72

"A fucking hobby vs a 20 slaughtered five year olds."

hmm, reading some of your posts, and your support of open marriages and gay rights I see that you have a hobby, fucking. This 'fucking hobby' is responsible for more abortions (child murder) than the number of victims of violent crime. So, you want to ban my fucking hobby but not yours? You're a fucking hypocrite.
80
@78
"I find it odd this issue has not been addressed, given the recent moves by the Obama administration to allow women to function in all military combat roles."

Changing that to include women would do a lot to undermine some the the Republican base's resentment of him.

But he could get that resentment back by also including trans-gendered and hermaphrodites.
Neither side could 100% support or 100% oppose that re-write.
Equal militia rights for all!
81
When it comes down to a desire to infringe upon an Americans 2nd amendment right or being an enemy to the constitution, either foreign or domestic. I have three words for you. Try and die.
82
anydangways... i'm in.
83
@80
Agreed. If a woman can do the job, wants the job, and makes no demands for special consideration within the job description, she should be allowed to the job. On the other hand, the militia should include all of the people who are not in the standing military. The militia IS the people.
84
The frustrating thing is there ALREADY IS a bill to close the gun show loophole, which has broad support even among gun owners, including some Republicans, and The Stranger knows it, but they refuse to say anything about it. HB 1588. Look it up.

Putting something on the ballot and voting is precisely what The Stranger is working against; "marching in circles" is precisely what Dan and The Stranger are doing here.

We have a chance to make a significant difference, and it's being flat-out ignored. Why? WRITE ABOUT 1588. WRITE ABOUT REP. MIKE HOPE. He's getting hammered by NRA phone calls 100-to-1 against, but that's not how his district feels, or ours. Put your money where your mouth is for once.

@24, @7 and others: the California law defines "Assault Weapons" perfectly adequately. There is no confusion on this point except among deliberate obfuscators. Pretending that they are hard or impossible to define is in fact the leading indicator of lying gun nut opposed to everything.
85
@24

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-…

There you go. Very disturbing.
86

@79 reallib - what does your screen name stand for, I wonder? I don't even know where to begin with your weak and assinine post. The mass of cells/zygote in my gut is my issue, not yours, got it? And as you are so concerned with what I'm sure you see as a fundamental right - the right to bear arms as affirmed by SCOTUS - you might perhaps recall that SCOTUS also affirmed my right to an abortion, with vastly limited restrictions these days, of course.

As for how you gleaned that my hobby is fucking, that would be incorrect. Fucking is something every human does - so I guess we are all hobbyists, then? Yourself? My support for gay marriage does not equate a hobby and does not equate my hobby being fucking, and I frankly fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion. The two have nothing to do with eachother.

And to answer your question, yes. I'd love to ban your 'hobby' if I could, if it would prove an antitode to our hyper-violent, boneheaded, gun-worshipping culture and the mass and other murders that needlessly, randomly, routinely ensue.

87
@84
Really. Parse it out: Assault means to attack. Weapon is an implement of destuction, a defence or offense tool. That makes the .68 caliber Brown Bess muzzle loading musket of Revolutionary War fame an assualt weapon. I find it interesting that the federal goverment calls so called assault weapons "personal defence weapons" (PDW) when they buy and issue them.
88
Count me out. The very weapons that we most want to ban are the ones most relevant for revolution. And while I have no plans on revolting, maybe my kids will?

Universal background checks are reasonable, we should pursue that. Banning assault weapons, while it would make us safer, is simply unamerican.
89
@85
"There you go. Very disturbing."

That looks more like a muzzle-loading rifle that is shaped like an AR 15.
Just because something is shaped like something does not mean that it is that thing.
Look up the definition of "assault weapon" from the previous "assault weapon" ban.

But thanks! Now I have a check mark for Assault weapons!
90
@86
You obviously do not get it. Calling someone a pack of names only indicates emotional insecurity. As for SCOTUS and abortion, that is a very tangled issue and I have problems with those that take a black and white contrast perspective. FWIIW I see nothing in the Constitution that guarentees your right to murder babies. That you feel the need to do so is sickening, perverted and shameful. On the other hand, I can see the use of abortion in non-voluntary pregnacies such as rape and conditions of pregnancy that threaten the mothers life and health. But not so you can practice irresponsible acts of procreation.There are many means of reproductive prophylaxis that do not involve snuffing out zygotes like a concentration camp guard.
91
@84
"the California law defines 'Assault Weapons' perfectly adequately. There is no confusion on this point except among deliberate obfuscators."

Now I want you to go read #85 and watch the video.
Does that gun appear to meet the definition of "assault weapon" as defined in California? Or the old Federal definition?

I understand what the definition is.
The people who support gun rights understand what the definition is.
It is the people who are trying to ban them that do not understand what they are trying to ban.
As evidenced by Dan's support for "for banning semi-automatic assault weapons".
And by #85's confusion over a muzzle loader that looks like an AR 15.

Sorry, I already have a check mark for Assault weapons!
92
Attention regular Sloggers. What do you make of the shill posting under the handle if "True liberal"? Personally I'm not sure whether to be offended at the lie* or bemused by the ham-fisted tactic of trying to fit in. He reminds me of the reports of completely square cops trying to infiltrate hippie circles in the 60s.

* I know plenty of genuine liberals who are pro-gun, but they don't make the same paranoid arguments I've seen from "True liberal".
93
@ 91, are your reasons for opposing a ban solely because of definitions, or because you don't want any ban, well defined or not, to be enacted?
94
@86

"Velvetbabe commented on Polyandry More Common Than Previously Thought.

I, for one, am very much for this."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/P…

The guns in my possession are my issue, not yours, got it? There are already laws that restrict gun ownership. I follow them. I don't give a shit about how many abortions you have. I don't give a shit how many girlfriends/husbands you have at the same time. You want the right to kill a child (or zygote, if that makes you feel better) that's fine with me. That's your choice. But to then make the argument that all guns kill children therefore must be banned makes you a fucking hypocrite. And an idiot.
95
@84
"Pretending that they are hard or impossible to define is in fact the leading indicator of lying gun nut opposed to everything."

Thanks! I needed a check mark for Gun nuts!
Now I have:
Gun nuts!
Assault weapons!
and Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
96
@93
Thanks, Matt from Denver. But I think this was already covered in your previous comment:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"
97
Seems to me the ones walking in circles here are Unbalanced True Liberals.

Frankly I don't give a shit if you want to own a gun. However I do think it is boneheaded stupid that folks can purchase a gun with out being properly trained and licensed beforehand.

Moreover given the technology we have today it is possible to place a safety on the gun insuring that only the legal owner of the gun can fire it. Yes that would make the gun more expensive, oh well hobbies are expensive get over it.

98
@97, that technology does indeed exist; unfortunately, it has about a 5% failure rate. Which means that one out of 20 tries, it will either let someone other than the owner fire the gun, or refuse to permit the owner to do so. Fail.
99
@ 96, that wasn't addressed to you. So, for the sake of your credibility, answer the question.
100

Wow, "True Liberal":

"But not so you can practice irresponsible acts of procreation"

Seriously? And you I'm sure are always first in line for the scrotal birth control injection, right? And you lobby hard for the male birth control pill? Of course you do. And/or you unfailingly wear a condom each time, every time, for the remainder of your life until both you and she agree to get pregnant, and/or you always pull out - every single time - well before the pre-come stage? Right? Because otherwise, you're being "irresponsible".

It's VERY responsible for a woman or girl to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy vs taking it to term especially if she can't fucking afford it, already has 6 kids, and/or the guy has fled and has zero intention of helping to support her, and/or if she's fucking 16 yrs old, and/or raped, molested, etc.

Understand this one thing: Women getting pregnant by mistake means that whatever method of birth control used, if any, FAILED, or she wouldn't be with child in the first goddamn place.

So I do hope your gf or wife never ends up in that situation. Good luck with it if you do, because it ain't your choice what happens.