Over 1,000 Gun Owners Violate Washington’s I-594- A Gun Control Law- In Front Of Police!

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Expat888

Funnily enough, I was wondering if a 1000 black gun-owners would be allowed to conduct the same protest peacefully??

...or would there be a powerful police presence and arrests for 'violating' the I-594- A Gun Control Law?

I guess we'll never know.

Maybe this was before your time:

From the website itsabouttimebpp.com

May 2 1967
Thirty armed Panthers and their supporters go to the California State Capitol at Sacramento to protest the Mulford Act, a bill aimed at banning the display of loaded weapons.

However, in today's Amerika

Re: "Infringement"

Dictionary.com says that "infringe" when used as a verb means "encroach" (yeah...that's useful) ... but *encroach* has these two tidbits (go ahead and accuse me of cherry-picking...I probably am...):

"Make gradual inroads"
"trespass...by gradual advances"

So, viewed though my cherry-colored lenses, anything that requires interaction with the government is an encroachment.

I might not *completely* agree with that statement, but I believe it is now a clearly arguable point.

a reply to: theGleep

And hence, the classic "boiling frog" approach I alluded to in my first posts here. I'm glad you made that connection. While lawmakers have taken it upon themselves to jump over that boundary, the citizens need to throw them right back over the fence, and threaten them to "STAY on their side of the fence." We need to move the line in the sand further away from us, and back towards them. It's called taking back Amerika.

a reply to: theGleep

I've thought on this a bit more (I do that all the time - double check my thoughts; I call it "continuous improvement")...and I think "Encroach" does actually have some use, after all.

When I have come across the term "encroach," it's usually been in terms of territory. "China is encroaching on Japanese territory by claiming ownership of a small island..." (if memory serves correctly, that's a real headline). So, can the concept "territory" fit the concept of rights for application of the term "encroachment"? I *certainly* think so. But I didn't spend any time in debate class, so I'm not good at constructing a reasonable argument to that - for now I will call it "self-evident".

If we consider the "second amendment right" as a "territory" (would "domain" make it easier to consider?) and, in context, these are territories "owned" by the individual, not by the state - not even granted by the state, but inherent in our existence ("Cognito ergo sum" kinda stuff!) - then "encroachment" on that right would be any attempt made by the government to "occupy" any part of that territory.

So, if the government says "You can only own guns if you register them" the government is "encroaching" on that right - by asserting that *some* of the right ('unregistered ownership') belongs to - and can be granted by - the government.

And, as I think about this, typing it up (and mind wandering...apologies for all the sidetracks...) I think this is the heart of all debate for "rights". What is "inherent" versus what is "government granted".

And that's the distinction the founders made - there are rights that are *NOT* granted by the government. Does the government grant you the right to think? Obviously not! Where does the line between "inherent" and "granted" get drawn? How do those lines get defined?

Whole 'nuther discussion, that is!

Back to "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right (domain) belongs to the individual as one of the enumerated "inalienable" rights. Encroachment is any attempt to "occupy" *any* part of that right.

In the context of this discussion, registration is a part of the "territory" of right-to-bear-arms, and therefor does *not* belong to the government, and any governmental assertion otherwise is encroachment; aka "infringement".

All that being said, and double-checking my thoughts and arguments, I wonder how the distinction between federal rights and state rights comes into play here...

Thanks for your patience - assuming you read all of that.

It seems to me the I-594 law was broken on several occasions at this event. The law should have been enforced on the spot. If these anti-gun zealots are really for this law then they need to act and enforce the law. If the local cops wont enforce the law then they need to declare martial law and bring in the Guard. If the Guard wont do it then maybe Home Land Security? If HLS wont do it then the writers of the law need to enforce it.

In any case, someone needs to enforce this law. It is the law and we must either follow the law or be forced to follow the law.

I can see it now: criminals going to a local gun dealer to perform a background check. Yeah, right. This kind
of feel-good, unenforceable regulation is just stupid. Where do they think the thug's guns come from, anyway? I mean, at worst they have to get a straw buyer, which they do now. Gah! Idiots!
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Who was the IDIOT that invented automatic weapons??? What purpose have they served??? What happened to the art of killing someone, with your bare hands.

originally posted by: McChillin
Who was the IDIOT that invented automatic weapons??? What purpose have they served??? What happened to the art of killing someone, with your bare hands.

Blame the Chinese for that one. They invented an automatic cross-bow thousands of years ago.

originally posted by: McChillin
Who was the IDIOT that invented automatic weapons??? What purpose have they served??? What happened to the art of killing someone, with your bare hands.

Hiram Maxim.

And he was a genius.

What happened to the art of killing someone, with your bare hands

Ask the ninjas...

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

Ask the ninjas...

a reply to: McChillin

What does Automatic Weapons have to do with anything on this?

The 2nd does not specify, nor limit the US citizens rights to "Bear Arms".

a reply to: macman

But there are limits. I can't legally own an operational Abrams M1 Main Battle Tank. Nor can I legally own a tactical nuclear weapon launcher system like the Davy Crockett. I can't own a GAUSE 17/A Minigun. I could continue on and on.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Tanks are own-able. The cannon is not an "arm". Nor is the Nuke.

This has been gone over and over many times.

And the Mini-Gun is ownable, via the rules that are already established.



And no, there are not limits defined in the 2nd. Limits are infringement.

a reply to: macman

Last I checked, in the U.S. it is illegal to own a fully operational tank without some SERIOUS permits and paperwork.

Same goes for the minigun.

I can't own an F-22 Raptor, nor the missiles to arm it.

I can't own a naval Railgun. (Booo!)

There's a lot of weapons U.S. citizens cannot legally own.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: McChillin

What does Automatic Weapons have to do with anything on this?

The 2nd does not specify, nor limit the US citizens rights to "Bear Arms".

Especially for something there already is a law for.

It's agianst the law to harm or kill someone else.

So some 'mental giants' want more laws to make something that already is illegal more so!

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Talk about a powder keg! I will guarantee you that each and every single cop had their fingers and toes crossed that nothing would happen. Imagine "we the people" sick and tired of the nonsense we see on the news regarding police brutality, and upon that having an unconstitutional and idiotic "law" hanging over our heads when some idiot cop pulls a gun.

He fires, another person fires, soon it's sounding like a battle at Iwo Jima! The implications of what would have transpired would have spelled doom for the government. Thousands of people angry at the government, well armed... I don't see this ending well for the cops no matter the hardware they bring.

Basically those who literally "paid"* to have this pass, especially the Bloomberg’s advocacy group , did it as a test for other states as well. The opposing measure just could not amount to the funds or attention. As we see it worked fine for those sponsoring it. If you see this is happening in your area, act on it fast, otherwise you'll be part of the minority in demonstrations(while a decent turn out-good on then for being there) -
*The big sponsors:
Bloomberg’s advocacy group - 1 Million
Paul Allen -$500,000
Bill and Melinda Gates- 1 Million
Source

Opposing the NRA donated NRA donated- $150K

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: macman

Last I checked, in the U.S. it is illegal to own a fully operational tank without some SERIOUS permits and paperwork.

Same goes for the minigun.

I can't own an F-22 Raptor, nor the missiles to arm it.

I can't own a naval Railgun. (Booo!)

There's a lot of weapons U.S. citizens cannot legally own.

We are talking "bear arms" not all weapons in general. You can't bear arms a jet, or missile, or nuke, or cannon...geez

The Framers referred to Guns as arms, just as we call them firearms or with pistols we say small arms, but an arm is typically a weapon that one person can carry and fire. A cannon, as example, was classified as artillery not arms.

This is strange, why wasn't there looting, flipping cop cars, breaking of windows, setting fires....what is wrong with these people?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: macman

Last I checked, in the U.S. it is illegal to own a fully operational tank without some SERIOUS permits and paperwork.

Same goes for the minigun.

I can't own an F-22 Raptor, nor the missiles to arm it.

I can't own a naval Railgun. (Booo!)

There's a lot of weapons U.S. citizens cannot legally own.

We are talking "bear arms" not all weapons in general. You can't bear arms a jet, or missile, or nuke, or cannon...geez

The Framers referred to Guns as arms, just as we call them firearms or with pistols we say small arms, but an arm is typically a weapon that one person can carry and fire. A cannon, as example, was classified as artillery not arms.

If you try to say what the framers of the constitution intended, you're falling into the same trap the left constantly tries to use to justify their request for stricter gun control. Arms, or ARMAMENTS, can mean any weapon, regardless of ability to carry said weapon. The framers did not specify only small arms, or firearms. Specifically, they said the right to bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia, should the time ever come that the common man must defend themselves. A militia in those days frequently used cannons, so the definition of "arms" should reasonably include cannons.