FREEDOM! Washington State's normal capacity gun mag ban ruled unconstitutional

[Racer X]

pdq wrote:
[quote=Mr645]
[quote=Smote]
[quote=Ca Bob]
The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.
As the saying goes, then seconds count, police are just minutes away
You guys love your slogans, don’t you?

Some of us are big on data, like the US has 10-200x more firearm homicides/gun deaths than our developed-nation peers, or a gun in the home is statistically associated with a 3x risk of homicide of residents in that home, or for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here’s a slogan conclusion drawn from many such actual studies for you:

In untangling the myth of defensive gun use, one thing is abundantly clear: If safety is the goal, guns are not the answer.

Freedumb!
and none of that is legally relevant. No interest balancng in 2A cases. Which is why these types of bans are unconstitutional.

[DeusxMac]

Smote wrote:
So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.

FEAR!
- Fear of the “bad guy”
- Fear of the “others”
- Fear of all unknowns

This fear is expressed at three progressively obsessive states:
1. Caution: They might come!
2. Fear-manifest: They are coming!
3. Paranoia: They are here!

- Machismo/manliness - Fear of appearing weak, effeminate
- Peer pressure - Fear of being ostracized by friends, being excluded

[davester]

You misspelled the title. It's FREEDUMB!

[Speedy]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Smote]
So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.

FEAR!
- Fear of the “bad guy”
- Fear of the “others”
- Fear of all unknowns

This fear is expressed at three progressively obsessive states:
1. Caution: They might come!
2. Fear-manifest: They are coming!
3. Paranoia: They are here!

- Machismo/manliness - Fear of appearing weak, effeminate
- Peer pressure - Fear of being ostracized by friends, being excluded
This^^^ Gunners live in fear of losing their manhood.

[Spock]

Some people say of Gunners :- big magazine, small dick, tiny brain. In fact a lot of people are talking about it ...

[Lemon Drop]

Seattle Times headline today:
"Gun sales in Washington have fallen dramatically this year, according to federal background check data, as a suite of new state gun regulations took effect."

That is what the arms manufacturers fear. Loss of profits is the foundation of the 2A rights BS stuff.

These gun and ammo manufacturers do not care about rights, public safety, reducing violence.. none of that. They care about their own profits.

Ordinary people fighting common sense gun legislation are like the people who fought anti-smoking laws.

Suckers.

[Racer X]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Seattle Times headline today:
"Gun sales in Washington have fallen dramatically this year, according to federal background check data, as a suite of new state gun regulations took effect."

That is what the arms manufacturers fear. Loss of profits is the foundation of the 2A rights BS stuff.

These gun and ammo manufacturers do not care about rights, public safety, reducing violence.. none of that. They care about their own profits.

Ordinary people fighting common sense gun legislation are like the people who fought anti-smoking laws.

Suckers.

absolutely none of that is legally relevant. it's all feelings and emotions, which makes for terrible laws.

[Racer X]

ruling https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...2-00897-08

breakdown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXDnOsWnTrI

[JoeH]

Smote wrote:
absolutely none of that is legally relevant. it's all feelings and emotions, which makes for terrible laws.

Sounds like you have been looking in a mirror. Your statement applies to almost everything you post, your feelings and emotions on the subject validated by carefully cherrypicked legal opinions that are biased in the direction you desire. There are many that disagree with those legal opinions. Just the current state of affairs is benefitting from a long term strategy to pack the courts. Enjoy it while you can, the rest of society is headed the other direction.

[Racer X]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=Smote]
absolutely none of that is legally relevant. it's all feelings and emotions, which makes for terrible laws.

Sounds like you have been looking in a mirror. Your statement applies to almost everything you post, your feelings and emotions on the subject validated by carefully cherrypicked legal opinions that are biased in the direction you desire. There are many that disagree with those legal opinions. Just the current state of affairs is benefitting from a long term strategy to pack the courts. Enjoy it while you can, the rest of society is headed the other direction.
29 states with Constitutional Carry indicate otherwise. The movement is very recent too.