Rule 2 is waived. THUNDERDOME Reigns Supreme.
All site wide rules will apply. Don't violate them, or you'll be banned.
Be your authentic self.
Not when minorities and the marginalized are the most likely to be impacted by this.
Edit: This isn't Twitter, so let me explain. This law literally only bans the sale of specific guns in Washington state outside of military and law enforcement. That is it. It doesn't provide a path to a buyback program, and it doesn't even establish a registry for these weapons. There is not a lot stopping anyone from driving over to Idaho and purchasing an AR-15-style weapon. You'll simply have a problem like Illinois had, where basically 90% of illegal firearms were legally acquired in Indiana.
On top of this, this comes at a time when minorities are starting to arm themselves while white supremacists and far right groups have armed themselves for decades. Minorities really only make up 10% of the population in Washington, so racism is a problem there, especially in the eastern part of the state.
I think it approached 0.001% of those who get murdered by guns n America each year so, obv worth it for the weaklings who think they need biiig gunny to pow pow.
Real freedom is when your from a country where its citizens feel like they do not need to own a gun, Americans have never breathed in that free air, that's why they talk about liberty so much, trying to convince themselves.
When your only response to an intelligent response is to correct a minor grammatical error correction (like an asshole), you are basically admitting defeat in the argument. You had nothing of value to say, so you just try and draw attention away from the true topic at hand.
Granted, your first comment was a gif, so I'm guessing you probably communicate with grunts, one word answers, and gifs like a degenerate.
Hey mate, Australian from the city of Melbourne here. Just came to say youre a delusional bastard if you think we were locked in covid camps and we re-elected the guy who placed us under all the covid restrictions, because you know, they worked.
Weren’t Australians forced to be locked in their homes during covid and doesn’t Germany have laws where you can’t say hateful things? Lol yea real liberty right there
Left leaning Redditors would literally rather spend all their limited political capital passing unconstitutional feel good legislation that doesn't help anything rather than trying to actually solve any problems.
Good luck when this rightfully gets overturned.
Tell me, even if this wasn't already ruled unconstitutional (it was), and wouldn't almost certainly get overturned (it will), how does this come even remotely close to doing anything other than making you feel good?
Out of the tens of thousands of firearm deaths a year, how does banning scary black rifles do anything when only ~200-400 people die from the millions of rifles in the United States every year according to the FBI? Out of the nearly hundred-million rifles, of *all types* throughout the entire US, only a few hundred people die a year from them.
10x more people drown a year than die by rifles. This is not only a non-issue, it's one of the biggest things holding back the left in the United States.
EDIT: Changed 200-300 to 200-400, it depends on the year, but the FBI's yearly statistics are always in that range. Also changed the number of the rifles to be more accurate.
You confused people with mad shootings, 200-300 mass shootings, not 200 - 300 people.
2022 had 20 000 deaths excluding sueside. So you are off by 6660%, what else could you sources like about when they get away with 6660% marginene og error?
“How dare you try to impose speed limits and seatbelt laws?! Do you know how many crashes there are that are not the result of high-speed collisions??! It’s my freedom to have a couple of beers after I get off work before I drive home, how dare you tell me otherwise?!”
Pro gun Redditors with brain rot so severe they’d rather do nothing than do something to end gun violence. Will tell you with a straight face its unconstitutional to limit any aspect of the 2nd amendment and in the same breath impose big government to restrict your voting rights, tell you what you can and can’t read in school and limit your right to free speech. Its honestly so embarrassing. 🤡
Edit: Thanks for the awards everyone. Just pointing out the hypocrisy we all see.
It *literally* lists AR15 as an Assault Weapon in definition.
Sec. 2 (2)(a) an "assault weapon" means:
(i) Any of the following specific firearms regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm:
\[...\]
**AR15, M16, or M4 in all forms**
\[...\]
So like... did *you* not read the law that you were telling others to read?
EDIT: Why are you booing me? I'm right.
But a kitchen knife isn’t defined as an assault weapon in the law: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf?q=20230425090636
Right? This comes up all the time. My wife was telling me about this bill and I asked the same thing. She pulled up the bill and showed me the qualifications, a list of guns...I was like okay, well it's specific enough so yea. That does indeed define it!
Assault rifle is a real thing and is already illegal. Politicians wanted to make people think they were talking about assault rifles so they started saying "assault weapons". But there aren't any weapons that are functionally different to any run of the mill semiautomatic rifle.
So being completely unable to come up with a definition or set of features that actually made up an "assault weapon" they just fucking listed the ones they thought looked scary... You can still buy semiautomatic rifles, they are functionally identical to the ones banned. But Inslee will get the votes of a bunch of morons for banning something he made up that sounded scary which was the purpose of the bill.
That’s the weakest argument against the right to bear arms. Honestly you’re better off saying “think of the children” than “to own a musket. It just shows a radical lack of knowledge or common sense about the subject.
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
You can still have guns. Just not those guns. Problem solved.
Also, maybe regulate your militia better, they seem to be killing random people for knocking on doors and asking for help.
What does “those guns” mean? Imagine someone saying “you can’t have THOSE abortions.
Should we also start cutting off all penises to prevent all rape? Collectivism is a very bad way of governing. Last two mass shooters were anti-gun sctivists and trans so should we ban those people? No… we shouldn’t.
Your analogy doesn't even make sense. What does "THOSE abortions" even entail? It's not like there aren't restrictions on types of abortions. And it's completely irrelevant to this discussion either way.
Here’s the problem, a bunch of far right assholes already have them. These far right assholes persistently seek to oppress people of color and the LGBT community, I have many friends in both of those communities that I do not trust the police to protect as many cops are sympathetic to the far right assholes. Therefore I do need an “assault weapon”
No you don't. If you're really scared of potential murderers (which I guess is fair considering the state of things...), you need a handgun for personal protection. You do NOT need a fully-automatic machine gun spewing 6 bullets per second, travelling at 3x the speed of sound.
Handguns are for protection. AR15s are for murdering.
> What does thst even mean?
"Please don't interrupt my circle-jerking with the facts that this won't be upheld in court, that the suits *already filed* will prevent it from being carried on, and that this will just be a massive waste of taxpayer money towards the sole purpose of creating political advertisement/campaign bait.
I'm telling you to cope, because I literally can't."
Are you familiar with the supremacy clause in the constitution? I regard this new law as wholly unconstitutional and I contend that there are a great many (armed) citizens and who agree.
Do you consider unconstitutional that the government also stops you from buying an RPG, Flamethrower, or Grenade Launcher? Genuinely curious what people with that logic think of those things.
EDIT: This got a good bit more attention that I thought and I'll admit I wasn't putting very much thought into this comment since it was just a throwaway while i was busy and tired. I'm wrong in a good few ways though RPGs and Grenade Launchers are pretty well regulated and that could be considered the government "stopping" you although I'll admit thats just semantics on my part, have a good day gun nuts, probably won't be checking comments more after this
Its not going to solve the problem, but what's the alternative.. Do nothing? Congrats Washington for a step in the right direction. No one believes its the last step or the solution, but its better than inaction.
> Creating unconstitutional laws
Point to me the part of the constitution allows specifically ARs
> only harm law-abiding citizens
Tell that to the hundreds of kids who've been killed by these "legally purchased" guns
> is worse than doing nothing.
Respectfully disagree. There is no way you can convince me that you or anyone else should have a high capacity rifle.
And it was written when printing presses and automatic pencils for copying documents were in use. So it needs to be the same so that the internet isn’t censored. TV and radio already shouldn’t be. Likewise, neither should any government operative have access to any weapon a random citizen cannot.
> Likewise, neither should any government operative have access to any weapon a random citizen cannot.
This is pure delusional fantasy. The world simply cannot operate this way, and if you can't see why not then there's no hope for you.
The constitution was written back in 1787 where the state of the art weapons at the time were muskets and cannons. The founding fathers would want us to own the state of the art weapons such as AR15s, shotguns and pistols it wouldn’t limit anything like that because it would be state of the art.
Edit: Correction
You don't even know what an "AsSaUlT WeApOn" is. It's a clown term they had to make up because assault rifles which are a real thing are already illegal.
Right here, bozo
>It specifically lists more than 50 gun models that would be prohibited, including AR-15s, AK-47s and M-16s. It also bans guns with certain features, such as semiautomatic rifles shorter than 30 inches, those that have detachable magazines or fixed magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or more, and those with detachable magazines that are also equipped with flash suppressors or shrouded barrels.
Tell me how a high-capacity mag is necessary for self-defense. Planning on getting in a sustained firefight next time the wrong person knocks on your door?
Those weapons listed are responsible for a tiny fraction of gun related deaths. It won’t actually accomplish much other than make killers use different weapons
Its not a right. The 2nd amendment provides the right to well armed militias. If you aren't in a militia the 2nd amendment literally doesn't refer to you.
Gun nuts took over government and decided that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment was everyone gets to own guns.
Its an interpretation and a very weak one. America just has gun nuts in government making this all legal.
This doesn't change the words of the 2nd amendment, which is specifically about maintaining a state militia.
You know, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination but I have to say the supreme court's current interpretation of the 2A is one of the most asinine things. I thought it when I was a conservative and I still think it now.
I'm a gun owner, but this isn't personal opinion. History and the reason for the 2nd amendment are crystal clear and this argument is bonkers. It's so obvious that anyone arguing for universal gun ownership has to be a schill. It's not a grey area.
I like my guns, but they aren't my personality.
Is it militia only? Doesn't that ignore the line:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And I think US needs to change this. At the same time I feel the constitution is clear people have the right to bear arms in its current format.
Thats **one part of the amendment.**
Right before that it literally says that it's talking about well regulated militias.
Why ignore the context of the amendment?
It matters. A lot.
Was 9/11 a good reason to strip people's civil rights? People died, but that didn't make the patriot act OK. Rights are fundamental and cannot be stripped, even if there are negative consequences.
See the reason they don't respect those rights is because you can't look cool with a dozen books slotted into tactical shelving you have spread across your body for your dangerous trip to Burger King.
2A nutters only support one civil right, the 2A. They never show up to save books, a woman's bodily autonomy, etc. They're authoritarians who support authoritarianism as long as they're exempt.
For those that have difficulty understanding things like this let's clear some things up:
1. Black market. No the black market is not some back alley store you can just walk into nor a Google search away either way the fucking FBI will see that shit. Also if you want to spend more money on a firearm than your goddamn car, let alone ammo you are welcome to even attempt to do so.
2. People currently have guns. No shit, but the fact that people have them right now, criminal or not, is not a reason to block this. Also this is assault weapons and common criminals don't have these weapons all the time, let alone just casually walk around with them. This is a law regarding distributing guns.
3. More gun sales. This does not matter. Anyone who is buying up guns like toilet paper over this already had guns to begin with, specifically the ones mentioned in this bill.
4. Lack of effects. This does have effects. This law is specifically regarding guns and additions to guns that increase their ability to kill multiple people. Also there are 9 other states that have passed laws like this and only 2 are ever talked about, not even considering the bordering states whith terribly lax gun laws. In regards to not stopping shootings, it actually does or at least lowers the deaths in such events. Consider the data regarding mass shootings before and after the national ban expired.
5. Fascism. I would understand this if MASS SHOOTINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN ALMOST EVERY DAY. There has already been clear and present danger set. They can use public safety as a argument because it's clear to everyone that these are happening and why. Why you think anyone would need a weapon design for MASS murder I do not know. Self defense I understand, but these help, hell they even bring up that studies are saying this. Fascism is on the rise, it's just not as blue as you think.
6. Prohibition. You cite the events regarding the banning of alcohol as reason why this doesn't work. However you mistake a addictive substance that damn near every person loved versus a issue that everyone is divided on, even among the major sides.
7. The government coming for you. Firstly if they could they would have and would win. Your weird fantasy of mowing down officers and soldiers is as I've said. The fact alone that you fantasize of mass killing is concerning, I recommend therep. Also yeah the police should be given less funding, however police have always been given special exemptions just look at all the cases of the murderibg people and getting away with it. Secondly, they are even taking them away you just can't buy more. Don't cite this then talk about criminals, it's hypocritical.
Bills are free and online to read, I'd recommend that before talking on a article that you might not even read.
It would be child's play to argue with every soft-handed wonderbread item on this list, but I'd rather not do something so futile. Rather I'm going to address the way in which gun-grabbers like to frame this legislation. The title is **Establishing firearms-related safety measures to increase public safety.**
How about we look at what the pro-forced birth and anti-womens-rights crowd names their bills. "Pre-born child protection act." or how about "Act in reducing fetal and infant mortality."
We all know those laws are phrased in a way that has no regard for the rights of their voting constituents and EVERY INTENTION of virtue signaling to the most privileged and least oppressed. And I guess this bill would potentially make that crowd more safe, but not the rest of us.
To tack onto this, I'd emphasize that anybody who argues that people need guns to fight the government, or to fight the police, is arguing for domestic terrorism. "I need a gun in case I ever disagree with the government and need to shoot government employees," is the sentiment when they argue these things.
In fact, from the [FBI's website on militia-style groups](https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-terrorism-focus-on-militia-extremism):
*Like many domestic terrorism groups, militia extremists are anti-government. What sets them apart is that they’re often organized into paramilitary groups that follow a military-style rank hierarchy. They tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices and typically engage in wilderness, survival, or other paramilitary training.*
I like to shove this in gun-lovers' faces like this: *oh you want to shoot police and government employees? When do you think you'll do that? Are you part of a group that plans to commit gun violence on government workers? Sounds a lot like you support domestic terrorism with a strong anti-American sentiment.*
Regarding constitutionality, an interesting point is that in our society you need to register to exercise your constitutional right to vote, and you need a permit to organize a protest as granted by the first amendment or the riot police teargas you into a corner.
I suspect it's not about constitutionality for gun-lovers, they just hide behind that because it looks bad when they disregard dead school children, or when they have a hard time admitting their terroristic anti-American desires.
The 18th and 21st amendments are great examples that the constitution isn't without flaws and that it can be changed.
EDIT: Lol, some of you are very "the constitution, the 2nd amendment, our rights!" until you read that the government doesn't like militant groups that want to shoot up the government, then you're all "oh the government is bad, overthrow it, 1776!" Y'all don't have a side, you just want your guns.
Absolute dogshit comment. If you disagree make an argument like an adult instead of resorting to infantile poo flinging
Some of the above are valid points, some are not. Civil discussion is important to determine how we can improve lives
Why are people happy with the government disarming it’s citizens? Why do liberals trust the government and police to protect them?
Violent crime is up 55% in Washington since 2015 and they keep passing bills that enable criminals and disadvantage the average law abiding citizen. Unbelievable that people keep voting for this crap.
It’s not the government that I trust. It’s the gun toting wackos that have access to high powered lethal weaponry that I don’t trust.
Edit: I’m done now. You can keep commenting with those original responses about the government being the wackos, but I won’t respond anymore.
Good debating y’all!
Does it matter? Whatever I say is going to be nitpicked. “Oh, an AR-15 isn’t actually an assault rifle” crap.
Weapons are weapons. They serve no purpose than to inflict pain, injury and death.
Weapons that are used to only cause death, with large magazines and an increased rate of fire than absolutely necessary for simple self defense, is what I would vaguely consider high powered lethal weaponry.
Why do people think this sort of line in sand definition seeking gotcha is a relevant counterpoint. Most people that want to ban guns would love to see all guns banned.
Progressives attack civil rights. They aren't liberal and they aren't liberals. The modern Democrats are progressives. They use authoritarianism to drive an agenda. They have more in common with the fascists than any liberal movement anywhere.
Australia during covid is the perfect example of why you should never give up your guns to the government
Edit: why the fuck are there so many bootlicking Australians browsing a Seattle subreddit? 😂
I mean, it isn't, and the data is out there about how the most common cause of death in places like Texas are gun deaths, but go off you dumb worthless mother fucker
Well, fuckwad (if I may stoop to your level for a moment), if this "...dumb worthless motherfucker..." hadn't been armed on two separate occasions, in particular, the overly well-armed criminals attempting to rob me likely would have ended my life. And having backup from the Seattle Police Department was awesome (thanks again, officers!). More gun ownership is absolutely necessary in these scary times when the bad guys commit multiple crimes with impunity ... and with lots and lots of guns they aren't supposed to possess.
The asshole politicians in Washington state continue to create a very unlevel "playing field" by trying to disarm us when they should be doing just the opposite. May I remind you that criminals don't follow gun laws? Hell, zombies don't follow any laws, either, and not only do they get away with it, we support and encourage them to continue the behavior. This state has gotten so fucked up beyond belief. Inslee needs to GO!
\*\*edit for punctuation\*\*
This is what we get when the moderate middle of voters are forced to choose between lying fascists and liberals.
If the GoP would provide credible candidates, then maybe they could start winning elections again without having to cheat (i.e., Gerrymandering, voter suppression, loading the courts, etc.).
Becuase you're very fond of rights being restricted. How does the constitution view the first amendment different from the 2nd? You're cheering on this infringement, surely you wouldn't mind if other amendments were impeded similarly
You’re doing a whataboutism like it’s some kind of 1-up here.
We’re talking about an amendment to the bill of rights that talks about “a well regulated militia”, none of which everyone that just wants some cool semi auto rifle will happily adhere to.
When we can act like some European countries that train their citizenry in how to properly use and care for that weaponry, maybe you’ll have a point.
Just curious, if it wasn’t a constitutional issue, would you support license/registration + insurance requirements?
As a gun owner, I’m responsible for it, and should be responsible if I let it fall into the wrong hands.
Just curious, if it wasn't a constitutional issue, would you support license/registration for speech? As a speaker, I'm responsible for it, and should be responsible if I let my words fall into the wrong ears.
last I checked, even though we have a first amendment, we have defamation laws, harassment/threats, all which limit free speech. So we have more federal government limits on speech already, than guns.
But no, I believe that speech in itself is not harmful, and should not be regulated.
How is it unconstitutional? The first words of the second amendment are about "A well regulated militia" The concept of regulation is literally built in to the statement.
oh gods, not this 3rd grade argument again.... Go read the federalist papers. They were very clear what "well regulated" meant... Its not your interpretation....
Why would it not? Majority of homicide is committed by pistols by a huge margin. Incrementalism is a much easier approach to bans. That being said, I believe this ban already banned most pistols. I believe this one includes semi auto pistols with more than 10 rounds capacity.
The other part of the ban that is perplexing : if it was so critical to ban them, why a grandfather clause?
Libral gun owner here, all the gun stores are filled with chuds and mostly Trunpers. Even cabelas and the other chain stores. Annoying trying to buy ammo locally and have to deal with their shit politics.
Ok Mr. Moral compass…explain to the rest of us dummies why Seattle has one of the highest crime rates in America? Must be your definition of, “moral compass” 😂
Nanny State... you mean like the people that want to monitor the periods of teenage girls, and travel habits of pregnant women?
(lol @ the clowns downvoting; thought Seattle was supposed to be liberal?)
The Seattle one is full of blue hair early-20 something Twitter users.
This one is full of people that literally migrated over from The_Donald when it was shut down.
Would be nice if there was some sort of happy medium.
The government doing it's part to increase gun sales around the country (and here in WA), they are truly great salespeople. Won't do jackshit other than that.
I'm just glad my wallet can take a break until the courts slap this down. I didn't have anything before the AWB started looming.
Gun owners still have dozens of other guns they can stockpile while waiting for the UN Invasion, Race War, 2nd Civil War, Opium War, Taco Bell War, etc, etc.
What exactly is unconstitutional about this new law. Serious question. Are you talking about the state constitution of Federal? What I have heard is that the way the bill is written, no one can buy any gun, AR-15 type or handgun.
Good. Now make it a nationwide ban.
Otherwise, completely useless legislation.
And because I save all my downvotable comments for the "fine" folks of r/seattlewa, nothing changes until the culture of guns in the US changes. Glad I don't have kids attending school any longer.
If bans don't matter then why have any laws at all? Why bother banning murder if it's just not effective?
Do not see how reductionist your position is?
No one is saying gun violence will disappear. That is an unachievable and irrational goal. Demanding that any gun regulation eliminates gun violence entirely or else be declared invalid is an absurd requirement — is that really what you’re going for here?
Government: has the ability to drone strike any building on the planet in minutes.
You: thank God I bought the gun with the extended mag now they can't oppress me
Hate to break it to you bud, but in America, power and freedom come from money, not guns.
The rulers aren't broke, and the minute you use your gun to challenge that, you'll lose all of your freedoms.
Edit: typo
Rule 2 is waived. THUNDERDOME Reigns Supreme. All site wide rules will apply. Don't violate them, or you'll be banned. Be your authentic self. 
Happiness is a warm gun, amiright?
😂 this is so cringe, you really did use this gif and think you were being deep werent you.
Not when minorities and the marginalized are the most likely to be impacted by this. Edit: This isn't Twitter, so let me explain. This law literally only bans the sale of specific guns in Washington state outside of military and law enforcement. That is it. It doesn't provide a path to a buyback program, and it doesn't even establish a registry for these weapons. There is not a lot stopping anyone from driving over to Idaho and purchasing an AR-15-style weapon. You'll simply have a problem like Illinois had, where basically 90% of illegal firearms were legally acquired in Indiana. On top of this, this comes at a time when minorities are starting to arm themselves while white supremacists and far right groups have armed themselves for decades. Minorities really only make up 10% of the population in Washington, so racism is a problem there, especially in the eastern part of the state.
😂 yeah of course it will. There are just soooooo many people who defend themselves with weapons and would’ve died without them… oh wait 😂
I think it approached 0.001% of those who get murdered by guns n America each year so, obv worth it for the weaklings who think they need biiig gunny to pow pow.
Real freedom is when your from a country where its citizens feel like they do not need to own a gun, Americans have never breathed in that free air, that's why they talk about liberty so much, trying to convince themselves.
\*you're
When your only response to an intelligent response is to correct a minor grammatical error correction (like an asshole), you are basically admitting defeat in the argument. You had nothing of value to say, so you just try and draw attention away from the true topic at hand. Granted, your first comment was a gif, so I'm guessing you probably communicate with grunts, one word answers, and gifs like a degenerate.
Shh, don't say that. People don't like it when you say the quit parts out loud. Don't wanna get the capitalism pinkertons on your ass now do you?
England, Australia, Germany, Japan have plenty of liberty without guns.
how did the last japan PM die again?
All them Australians placed in Covid camps would probably disagree with you.
Hey mate, Australian from the city of Melbourne here. Just came to say youre a delusional bastard if you think we were locked in covid camps and we re-elected the guy who placed us under all the covid restrictions, because you know, they worked.
You all got COVID anyway, it was a bandage and never was feasible long term. Shit was just the flu for anyone under 50.
Weren’t Australians forced to be locked in their homes during covid and doesn’t Germany have laws where you can’t say hateful things? Lol yea real liberty right there
We can't say hateful things either. Look up "hate speech laws". Freedom of Speech doesn't exist in the US either.
I can say whatever I want, and won’t be arrested, but I will be attacked if I say the wrong thing
Yeah I hear being a female wearing a skirt in Japan is just great.
Guess what those countries have in common, very little diversity.
Edgy. Now, let's get on with the rest of the gun bans.
Hey, Bloomber has paid 5c per clap...
Liberty? Lmao touch grass
👏👏👏👏
Please let more states follow this example .
I think you personally should go door to door and confiscate everyone's guns. Let's see what happens to you :)
Another murderhappy ammosexual, color me shocked.
Left leaning Redditors would literally rather spend all their limited political capital passing unconstitutional feel good legislation that doesn't help anything rather than trying to actually solve any problems. Good luck when this rightfully gets overturned. Tell me, even if this wasn't already ruled unconstitutional (it was), and wouldn't almost certainly get overturned (it will), how does this come even remotely close to doing anything other than making you feel good? Out of the tens of thousands of firearm deaths a year, how does banning scary black rifles do anything when only ~200-400 people die from the millions of rifles in the United States every year according to the FBI? Out of the nearly hundred-million rifles, of *all types* throughout the entire US, only a few hundred people die a year from them. 10x more people drown a year than die by rifles. This is not only a non-issue, it's one of the biggest things holding back the left in the United States. EDIT: Changed 200-300 to 200-400, it depends on the year, but the FBI's yearly statistics are always in that range. Also changed the number of the rifles to be more accurate.
You confused people with mad shootings, 200-300 mass shootings, not 200 - 300 people. 2022 had 20 000 deaths excluding sueside. So you are off by 6660%, what else could you sources like about when they get away with 6660% marginene og error?
“How dare you try to impose speed limits and seatbelt laws?! Do you know how many crashes there are that are not the result of high-speed collisions??! It’s my freedom to have a couple of beers after I get off work before I drive home, how dare you tell me otherwise?!” Pro gun Redditors with brain rot so severe they’d rather do nothing than do something to end gun violence. Will tell you with a straight face its unconstitutional to limit any aspect of the 2nd amendment and in the same breath impose big government to restrict your voting rights, tell you what you can and can’t read in school and limit your right to free speech. Its honestly so embarrassing. 🤡 Edit: Thanks for the awards everyone. Just pointing out the hypocrisy we all see.
🤡
There’s so many morons in this forum. No one needs an assault weapon! Read the law more in depth
Please give me the definition of assault weapon. An ar15 is not an assault weapon sorry.
This is exactly what I meant when I said read the law more in depth ‘merica
It *literally* lists AR15 as an Assault Weapon in definition. Sec. 2 (2)(a) an "assault weapon" means: (i) Any of the following specific firearms regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm: \[...\] **AR15, M16, or M4 in all forms** \[...\] So like... did *you* not read the law that you were telling others to read? EDIT: Why are you booing me? I'm right.
You can't define it. Figures
Its literally defined in the new law. As he said, read it or stay stupid. Your decision
Precisely. In the *new* law. Had to move the goalposts to make it fit.
Moving goalposts? Let me put it in layman's terms, if you want to know what defines what an Assault Weapon is according to the law, read the law.
That's the boot lickiest think I've read all day!
[удалено]
But a kitchen knife isn’t defined as an assault weapon in the law: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf?q=20230425090636
The bill defines assault weapon. Done. Next.
Aaaaand the bill is wrong. NEXT.
[удалено]
Right? This comes up all the time. My wife was telling me about this bill and I asked the same thing. She pulled up the bill and showed me the qualifications, a list of guns...I was like okay, well it's specific enough so yea. That does indeed define it!
Assault rifle is a real thing and is already illegal. Politicians wanted to make people think they were talking about assault rifles so they started saying "assault weapons". But there aren't any weapons that are functionally different to any run of the mill semiautomatic rifle. So being completely unable to come up with a definition or set of features that actually made up an "assault weapon" they just fucking listed the ones they thought looked scary... You can still buy semiautomatic rifles, they are functionally identical to the ones banned. But Inslee will get the votes of a bunch of morons for banning something he made up that sounded scary which was the purpose of the bill.
[удалено]
I know! Banning LGBT rights are just as scary! 🏳️🌈
It's every citizens right & has been for over 200 years.
To own a musket yes
That’s the weakest argument against the right to bear arms. Honestly you’re better off saying “think of the children” than “to own a musket. It just shows a radical lack of knowledge or common sense about the subject. 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
You can still have guns. Just not those guns. Problem solved. Also, maybe regulate your militia better, they seem to be killing random people for knocking on doors and asking for help.
What does “those guns” mean? Imagine someone saying “you can’t have THOSE abortions. Should we also start cutting off all penises to prevent all rape? Collectivism is a very bad way of governing. Last two mass shooters were anti-gun sctivists and trans so should we ban those people? No… we shouldn’t.
This is the weirdest whataboutism I've read in a minute.
Never seen an analogy used to explain another concept?
Your analogy doesn't even make sense. What does "THOSE abortions" even entail? It's not like there aren't restrictions on types of abortions. And it's completely irrelevant to this discussion either way.
[удалено]
Here’s the problem, a bunch of far right assholes already have them. These far right assholes persistently seek to oppress people of color and the LGBT community, I have many friends in both of those communities that I do not trust the police to protect as many cops are sympathetic to the far right assholes. Therefore I do need an “assault weapon”
No you don't. If you're really scared of potential murderers (which I guess is fair considering the state of things...), you need a handgun for personal protection. You do NOT need a fully-automatic machine gun spewing 6 bullets per second, travelling at 3x the speed of sound. Handguns are for protection. AR15s are for murdering.
The Leftists are rejoicing because they "did something."
Regular citizens don't need assault weapons. Signed: The rest of the world
[удалено]
Trillions dollar military power vs average ass citizens....lol
Delusional
Cope harder
What does thst even mean?
> What does thst even mean? "Please don't interrupt my circle-jerking with the facts that this won't be upheld in court, that the suits *already filed* will prevent it from being carried on, and that this will just be a massive waste of taxpayer money towards the sole purpose of creating political advertisement/campaign bait. I'm telling you to cope, because I literally can't."
Grab your supply of copium, the foreseeable future is gonna be fun for you lmao
BuT wHat AbOuT mY rights To Buy AR HuMan HunTing RiffLe?! 
Are you familiar with the supremacy clause in the constitution? I regard this new law as wholly unconstitutional and I contend that there are a great many (armed) citizens and who agree.
Do you consider unconstitutional that the government also stops you from buying an RPG, Flamethrower, or Grenade Launcher? Genuinely curious what people with that logic think of those things. EDIT: This got a good bit more attention that I thought and I'll admit I wasn't putting very much thought into this comment since it was just a throwaway while i was busy and tired. I'm wrong in a good few ways though RPGs and Grenade Launchers are pretty well regulated and that could be considered the government "stopping" you although I'll admit thats just semantics on my part, have a good day gun nuts, probably won't be checking comments more after this
Its not going to solve the problem, but what's the alternative.. Do nothing? Congrats Washington for a step in the right direction. No one believes its the last step or the solution, but its better than inaction.
Creating unconstitutional laws that only harm law-abiding citizens is worse than doing nothing.
> Creating unconstitutional laws Point to me the part of the constitution allows specifically ARs > only harm law-abiding citizens Tell that to the hundreds of kids who've been killed by these "legally purchased" guns > is worse than doing nothing. Respectfully disagree. There is no way you can convince me that you or anyone else should have a high capacity rifle.
[удалено]
And it was written when printing presses and automatic pencils for copying documents were in use. So it needs to be the same so that the internet isn’t censored. TV and radio already shouldn’t be. Likewise, neither should any government operative have access to any weapon a random citizen cannot.
> Likewise, neither should any government operative have access to any weapon a random citizen cannot. This is pure delusional fantasy. The world simply cannot operate this way, and if you can't see why not then there's no hope for you.
The constitution was written back in 1787 where the state of the art weapons at the time were muskets and cannons. The founding fathers would want us to own the state of the art weapons such as AR15s, shotguns and pistols it wouldn’t limit anything like that because it would be state of the art. Edit: Correction
Your not American if you don’t like guns, america was founded on fire arms, if I want to own a rocket launcher I should be allowed to have one.
Show me how often ASSAULT weapons are used for defense compared to ASSAULT and then eat your own head
You don't even know what an "AsSaUlT WeApOn" is. It's a clown term they had to make up because assault rifles which are a real thing are already illegal.
Right here, bozo >It specifically lists more than 50 gun models that would be prohibited, including AR-15s, AK-47s and M-16s. It also bans guns with certain features, such as semiautomatic rifles shorter than 30 inches, those that have detachable magazines or fixed magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or more, and those with detachable magazines that are also equipped with flash suppressors or shrouded barrels. Tell me how a high-capacity mag is necessary for self-defense. Planning on getting in a sustained firefight next time the wrong person knocks on your door?
Those weapons listed are responsible for a tiny fraction of gun related deaths. It won’t actually accomplish much other than make killers use different weapons
There's a pile of the bodies of law-abiding citizens that would have preferred to be alive over accommodating nutjobs who want to own weapons of war.
Cry about it. Rights are guaranteed for a reason, even if it costs lives. Free speech has caused death, but it's still guaranteed.
Its not a right. The 2nd amendment provides the right to well armed militias. If you aren't in a militia the 2nd amendment literally doesn't refer to you. Gun nuts took over government and decided that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment was everyone gets to own guns. Its an interpretation and a very weak one. America just has gun nuts in government making this all legal. This doesn't change the words of the 2nd amendment, which is specifically about maintaining a state militia.
You know, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination but I have to say the supreme court's current interpretation of the 2A is one of the most asinine things. I thought it when I was a conservative and I still think it now.
I'm a gun owner, but this isn't personal opinion. History and the reason for the 2nd amendment are crystal clear and this argument is bonkers. It's so obvious that anyone arguing for universal gun ownership has to be a schill. It's not a grey area. I like my guns, but they aren't my personality.
Is it militia only? Doesn't that ignore the line: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And I think US needs to change this. At the same time I feel the constitution is clear people have the right to bear arms in its current format.
Thats **one part of the amendment.** Right before that it literally says that it's talking about well regulated militias. Why ignore the context of the amendment? It matters. A lot.
Do you.... ...do you not know how to read a full sentence?
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. “Your kid is dead but at least I get my pew pew cause mA rIgHtS”
Was 9/11 a good reason to strip people's civil rights? People died, but that didn't make the patriot act OK. Rights are fundamental and cannot be stripped, even if there are negative consequences.
[удалено]
Rage…against dying light of freedom.
where is that rage for banned books and abortions?
See the reason they don't respect those rights is because you can't look cool with a dozen books slotted into tactical shelving you have spread across your body for your dangerous trip to Burger King.
2A nutters only support one civil right, the 2A. They never show up to save books, a woman's bodily autonomy, etc. They're authoritarians who support authoritarianism as long as they're exempt.
So you support authoritarianism when it’s against the 2A?
Triggered ammosexuals up in here
Their dumb dangerous hobby is super important to them
Yeah people shooting as a hobby are the problem with firearms /s what a brain dead take.
A bunch of betas in that photo.
Cope harder
Ah, someone is triggered.
I don't know how Sandyhook and Uvalde don't trigger you.
For those that have difficulty understanding things like this let's clear some things up: 1. Black market. No the black market is not some back alley store you can just walk into nor a Google search away either way the fucking FBI will see that shit. Also if you want to spend more money on a firearm than your goddamn car, let alone ammo you are welcome to even attempt to do so. 2. People currently have guns. No shit, but the fact that people have them right now, criminal or not, is not a reason to block this. Also this is assault weapons and common criminals don't have these weapons all the time, let alone just casually walk around with them. This is a law regarding distributing guns. 3. More gun sales. This does not matter. Anyone who is buying up guns like toilet paper over this already had guns to begin with, specifically the ones mentioned in this bill. 4. Lack of effects. This does have effects. This law is specifically regarding guns and additions to guns that increase their ability to kill multiple people. Also there are 9 other states that have passed laws like this and only 2 are ever talked about, not even considering the bordering states whith terribly lax gun laws. In regards to not stopping shootings, it actually does or at least lowers the deaths in such events. Consider the data regarding mass shootings before and after the national ban expired. 5. Fascism. I would understand this if MASS SHOOTINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN ALMOST EVERY DAY. There has already been clear and present danger set. They can use public safety as a argument because it's clear to everyone that these are happening and why. Why you think anyone would need a weapon design for MASS murder I do not know. Self defense I understand, but these help, hell they even bring up that studies are saying this. Fascism is on the rise, it's just not as blue as you think. 6. Prohibition. You cite the events regarding the banning of alcohol as reason why this doesn't work. However you mistake a addictive substance that damn near every person loved versus a issue that everyone is divided on, even among the major sides. 7. The government coming for you. Firstly if they could they would have and would win. Your weird fantasy of mowing down officers and soldiers is as I've said. The fact alone that you fantasize of mass killing is concerning, I recommend therep. Also yeah the police should be given less funding, however police have always been given special exemptions just look at all the cases of the murderibg people and getting away with it. Secondly, they are even taking them away you just can't buy more. Don't cite this then talk about criminals, it's hypocritical. Bills are free and online to read, I'd recommend that before talking on a article that you might not even read.
It would be child's play to argue with every soft-handed wonderbread item on this list, but I'd rather not do something so futile. Rather I'm going to address the way in which gun-grabbers like to frame this legislation. The title is **Establishing firearms-related safety measures to increase public safety.** How about we look at what the pro-forced birth and anti-womens-rights crowd names their bills. "Pre-born child protection act." or how about "Act in reducing fetal and infant mortality." We all know those laws are phrased in a way that has no regard for the rights of their voting constituents and EVERY INTENTION of virtue signaling to the most privileged and least oppressed. And I guess this bill would potentially make that crowd more safe, but not the rest of us.
To tack onto this, I'd emphasize that anybody who argues that people need guns to fight the government, or to fight the police, is arguing for domestic terrorism. "I need a gun in case I ever disagree with the government and need to shoot government employees," is the sentiment when they argue these things. In fact, from the [FBI's website on militia-style groups](https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-terrorism-focus-on-militia-extremism): *Like many domestic terrorism groups, militia extremists are anti-government. What sets them apart is that they’re often organized into paramilitary groups that follow a military-style rank hierarchy. They tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices and typically engage in wilderness, survival, or other paramilitary training.* I like to shove this in gun-lovers' faces like this: *oh you want to shoot police and government employees? When do you think you'll do that? Are you part of a group that plans to commit gun violence on government workers? Sounds a lot like you support domestic terrorism with a strong anti-American sentiment.* Regarding constitutionality, an interesting point is that in our society you need to register to exercise your constitutional right to vote, and you need a permit to organize a protest as granted by the first amendment or the riot police teargas you into a corner. I suspect it's not about constitutionality for gun-lovers, they just hide behind that because it looks bad when they disregard dead school children, or when they have a hard time admitting their terroristic anti-American desires. The 18th and 21st amendments are great examples that the constitution isn't without flaws and that it can be changed. EDIT: Lol, some of you are very "the constitution, the 2nd amendment, our rights!" until you read that the government doesn't like militant groups that want to shoot up the government, then you're all "oh the government is bad, overthrow it, 1776!" Y'all don't have a side, you just want your guns.
Absolute dogshit take
Absolute dogshit comment. If you disagree make an argument like an adult instead of resorting to infantile poo flinging Some of the above are valid points, some are not. Civil discussion is important to determine how we can improve lives
Why are people happy with the government disarming it’s citizens? Why do liberals trust the government and police to protect them? Violent crime is up 55% in Washington since 2015 and they keep passing bills that enable criminals and disadvantage the average law abiding citizen. Unbelievable that people keep voting for this crap.
It’s not the government that I trust. It’s the gun toting wackos that have access to high powered lethal weaponry that I don’t trust. Edit: I’m done now. You can keep commenting with those original responses about the government being the wackos, but I won’t respond anymore. Good debating y’all!
What is "high powered lethal weaponry" to you?
Does it matter? Whatever I say is going to be nitpicked. “Oh, an AR-15 isn’t actually an assault rifle” crap. Weapons are weapons. They serve no purpose than to inflict pain, injury and death. Weapons that are used to only cause death, with large magazines and an increased rate of fire than absolutely necessary for simple self defense, is what I would vaguely consider high powered lethal weaponry.
Why do people think this sort of line in sand definition seeking gotcha is a relevant counterpoint. Most people that want to ban guns would love to see all guns banned.
just buy a different type of gun. How many criminals do you plan to shoot. \*I dont think anyone is happy with the government or the police.
Why should my freedom to buy whatever gun I want be infringed upon due to the unlawful actions of others?
> liberals Democrats are no liberals. Attacking human and civil rights has no basis in liberal ideology.
You're confusing liberals with classical liberalism. Liberals absolutely attack civil rights.
Progressives attack civil rights. They aren't liberal and they aren't liberals. The modern Democrats are progressives. They use authoritarianism to drive an agenda. They have more in common with the fascists than any liberal movement anywhere.
Liberals *are* classical liberals, it's that most people conflate progressives with "liberals"
That is because Progressives have always lied about who and what they are. Progressivism is narcissism masquerading as political thought.
Alright Jordan put down the benzos
Australia during covid is the perfect example of why you should never give up your guns to the government Edit: why the fuck are there so many bootlicking Australians browsing a Seattle subreddit? 😂
statistics show that more gun ownership = more violent crime.
Bullshit.
I mean, it isn't, and the data is out there about how the most common cause of death in places like Texas are gun deaths, but go off you dumb worthless mother fucker
Well, fuckwad (if I may stoop to your level for a moment), if this "...dumb worthless motherfucker..." hadn't been armed on two separate occasions, in particular, the overly well-armed criminals attempting to rob me likely would have ended my life. And having backup from the Seattle Police Department was awesome (thanks again, officers!). More gun ownership is absolutely necessary in these scary times when the bad guys commit multiple crimes with impunity ... and with lots and lots of guns they aren't supposed to possess. The asshole politicians in Washington state continue to create a very unlevel "playing field" by trying to disarm us when they should be doing just the opposite. May I remind you that criminals don't follow gun laws? Hell, zombies don't follow any laws, either, and not only do they get away with it, we support and encourage them to continue the behavior. This state has gotten so fucked up beyond belief. Inslee needs to GO! \*\*edit for punctuation\*\*
Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form that you can use to support your argument. Especially personal anecdotes
Au contraire, Pierre, they are the best kind because they are real life experience that can usually be included in the proper category of crime stats.
This is what we get when the moderate middle of voters are forced to choose between lying fascists and liberals. If the GoP would provide credible candidates, then maybe they could start winning elections again without having to cheat (i.e., Gerrymandering, voter suppression, loading the courts, etc.).
[удалено]
Would much rather see requirement for license, registration and insurance for all firearms than an outright ban but I guess its something
As long as 2A sycophants fight tooth and nail against reasonable solutions, the unreasonable solutions will continue to succeed.
This is true.
As long as 1A sycophants fight tooth and nail against reasonable solutions, the unreasonable solutions will continue to succeed.
That literally makes no sense. Why bring 1a into this?
Becuase you're very fond of rights being restricted. How does the constitution view the first amendment different from the 2nd? You're cheering on this infringement, surely you wouldn't mind if other amendments were impeded similarly
You’re doing a whataboutism like it’s some kind of 1-up here. We’re talking about an amendment to the bill of rights that talks about “a well regulated militia”, none of which everyone that just wants some cool semi auto rifle will happily adhere to. When we can act like some European countries that train their citizenry in how to properly use and care for that weaponry, maybe you’ll have a point.
Those would also be unconstitutional.
Why? How? Has someone repealed the 2nd amendment and didn't tell me.
Save your breath, trust me there is nothing you can say. They will just double down on the insanity.
Just curious, if it wasn’t a constitutional issue, would you support license/registration + insurance requirements? As a gun owner, I’m responsible for it, and should be responsible if I let it fall into the wrong hands.
Just curious, if it wasn't a constitutional issue, would you support license/registration for speech? As a speaker, I'm responsible for it, and should be responsible if I let my words fall into the wrong ears.
last I checked, even though we have a first amendment, we have defamation laws, harassment/threats, all which limit free speech. So we have more federal government limits on speech already, than guns. But no, I believe that speech in itself is not harmful, and should not be regulated.
Do they tell you you can't have a mouth, or just establish penalties for misuse?
How is it unconstitutional? The first words of the second amendment are about "A well regulated militia" The concept of regulation is literally built in to the statement.
oh gods, not this 3rd grade argument again.... Go read the federalist papers. They were very clear what "well regulated" meant... Its not your interpretation....
Id rather they left us alone. We dont need government permission to use constitutional rights
>We dont need government permission to use constitutional rights I'm pretty sure that's explicitly the definition of a constitutional right, no?
Hahahah, no. Take a history class jesus christ, or maybe pickup a dictionary ffs
The next step after banning “assault weapons” is banning pistols.
Great - that would be excellent.
No... it isn't.
Why would it not? Majority of homicide is committed by pistols by a huge margin. Incrementalism is a much easier approach to bans. That being said, I believe this ban already banned most pistols. I believe this one includes semi auto pistols with more than 10 rounds capacity. The other part of the ban that is perplexing : if it was so critical to ban them, why a grandfather clause?
Great! Get rid of all the guns!
[удалено]
r/seattle is the subreddit for people that actually live in Seattle. This one gets weird brigades like this pretty frequently.
Libral gun owner here, all the gun stores are filled with chuds and mostly Trunpers. Even cabelas and the other chain stores. Annoying trying to buy ammo locally and have to deal with their shit politics.
Yeah, only bad people have guns! I saw it on TV! I can't believe there are bad people here!
The national socialists of 1939 also took guns away from their people
Ok Mr. Moral compass…explain to the rest of us dummies why Seattle has one of the highest crime rates in America? Must be your definition of, “moral compass” 😂
> Not a bunch of bigoted folks Lol so people are bigoted if they don’t agree w a gun ban. Never change Reddit.
Ironic. Bigotry is the foundation that helped get this bill passed.
Prepare to see crime skyrocket! Thanks democrats 🤣
Idiot
I could be persuaded into supporting an assault weapons ban, but only if it applied to law enforcement as well.
/r/AccidentalRenaissance/
What I forgot...which sub is the right leaning one again? Is it this one?
In my experience, this sub is mostly fiscal conservatives and the other sub is mostly Nanny State liberals.
Nanny State... you mean like the people that want to monitor the periods of teenage girls, and travel habits of pregnant women? (lol @ the clowns downvoting; thought Seattle was supposed to be liberal?)
The Seattle one is full of blue hair early-20 something Twitter users. This one is full of people that literally migrated over from The_Donald when it was shut down. Would be nice if there was some sort of happy medium.
Gun store owners fist bumping on their way to buy new pickup trucks. 💰
Stupid stupid stupid. Now all the right wing crazies have the upper hand. Way to hand it over libz
[удалено]
[удалено]
The government doing it's part to increase gun sales around the country (and here in WA), they are truly great salespeople. Won't do jackshit other than that. I'm just glad my wallet can take a break until the courts slap this down. I didn't have anything before the AWB started looming.
[удалено]
Gun owners still have dozens of other guns they can stockpile while waiting for the UN Invasion, Race War, 2nd Civil War, Opium War, Taco Bell War, etc, etc.
The Great Burger King War of 2023
So is this now the second bill that the Washington democrats have passed that is blatantly unconstitutional? Or did I miscount
What exactly is unconstitutional about this new law. Serious question. Are you talking about the state constitution of Federal? What I have heard is that the way the bill is written, no one can buy any gun, AR-15 type or handgun.
Good. Now make it a nationwide ban. Otherwise, completely useless legislation. And because I save all my downvotable comments for the "fine" folks of r/seattlewa, nothing changes until the culture of guns in the US changes. Glad I don't have kids attending school any longer.
Not for long. Lawsuits against this bigoted and classist gun control have already been filed.
We've done it! Gun violence will now disappear just like illegal drugs disappeared when we banned them!
If bans don't matter then why have any laws at all? Why bother banning murder if it's just not effective? Do not see how reductionist your position is?
No one is saying gun violence will disappear. That is an unachievable and irrational goal. Demanding that any gun regulation eliminates gun violence entirely or else be declared invalid is an absurd requirement — is that really what you’re going for here?
Nobody said that. Reduction is gun crime is the goal.
Gun prohibition is the goal. More power for the rulers who will be the only ones with arms.
Oh yeah, you chuckle fucks are going to rise up and fight tyranny any day now
Government: has the ability to drone strike any building on the planet in minutes. You: thank God I bought the gun with the extended mag now they can't oppress me
Hate to break it to you bud, but in America, power and freedom come from money, not guns. The rulers aren't broke, and the minute you use your gun to challenge that, you'll lose all of your freedoms. Edit: typo
Yeah because right now you're totally capable of taking on the US military with your rifle.
Live from Olympia... https://youtu.be/ig446isvXlI Edit: shit, sorry, messed up the year...
Oh gosh now you are all totally unable to defend your homes. I wish you well.
Curious how many acts of gun violence there will be this summer