15,000 to 900...... I'd say that's a shellacking!

Washington Gun Owners’ Record Resistance To Radical Gun Mag Ban

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today applauded Washington State gun owners and Second Amendment activists for the record response to a controversial and radical Senate bill (ESSB 5078) that seeks to ban so-called “large capacity” ammunition magazines.

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/02/washing...z7LKiBnjns

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags. It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

---

s
;

;

As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags.  It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

I believe the bill bans "high capacity" magazines, which it defines as more than 10 rounds.  It obviously (to us) doesn't address the underlying problem, but those on the left don't want to understand that.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Just as a person will feel more protected having multiple Covid boosters, having multiple rounds will also make a person feel more protected.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Just as a person will feel more protected having multiple Covid boosters, having multiple rounds will also make a person feel more protected.

And that's fair.  

But when the people vote to have HCM banned, and some sort of court decides it's unconstitutional.  That doesn't really make sense to me.  

It definitely doesn't seem "radical"

---

s
;

;

As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags.  It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

The right isn't defined because it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and overthrow the government if needed. It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. Now there are mass destruction weapons that weren't thought of then but the government should be afraid of the people. The people should not be afraid of the government.

---

As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags.  It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

 It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. 

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that?

That's just your opinion, not that if the 2nd.

I personally think in 2020s it should mean protecting your home and family from would be criminals.

---

s
;

;

 It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. 

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that?

That's just your opinion, not that if the 2nd.

I personally think in 2020s it should mean protecting your home and family from would be criminals.

Yes, the criminals that make up the government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that?

That's just your opinion, not that if the 2nd.

I personally think in 2020s it should mean protecting your home and family from would be criminals.

The constitution is written that way for a reason. It shouldn't need to be updated and it doesn't need to define every little thing. It says you have a right to guns, it doesn't limit anything. Anything that is not in the constitution belongs to the states. If states want to ban things, they generally have more power than the feds do and/or should.

Frankly you should be able to buy anything and legally own it as long as you provide the correct safety concerns. Now realistically you can't do that because people are crazy and evil and would bomb you for fun.

Yes, the criminals that make up the government.

Definitely those, they can be the worst

---

As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags.  It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

The right isn't defined because it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and overthrow the government if needed. It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. Now there are mass destruction weapons that weren't thought of then but the government should be afraid of the people. The people should not be afraid of the government.

Completely false.  The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation.  Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.  
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. You need to go read transcripts from the early congressional conventions.

---

Lol. You need to go read transcripts from the early congressional conventions.

I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states.  Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788.  That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.  

The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA.  Here are their statements:

• NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
  

If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  

None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny.
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Once again, you can't see the forest because all the trees are in the way.

---

Once again, you can't see the forest because all the trees are in the way.

Surely this forest would have some evidence of its existence? Provide one quote. One link. Can you?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why did the forefathers see a standing army as a threat, Mikey?

---

Why did the forefathers see a standing army as a threat, Mikey?

Because it might interfere with or even overthrow the civilian government.  Because it might make itself out to be above or beyond civilian authority. Lots of reasons.  

That's why the forefathers made sure the entire military has to be reauthorized every two years by Congress. That's one of the original articles. Makes it much harder for the military to become corrupt in those ways.  If the forefathers thought that people having personal weapons was part of that balancing act, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the originally ratified document, not in the amendments.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. You need to go read transcripts from the early congressional conventions.

I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states.  Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788.  That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.  

The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA.  Here are their statements:

• NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
  

If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  

None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny. 
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?

Out of curiosity, wouldn’t you want to resist tyranny?

---

I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states.  Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788.  That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.  

The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA.  Here are their statements:

• NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
  

If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  

None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny. 
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?

Out of curiosity, wouldn’t you want to resist tyranny?

Absolutely. Tyrants have been overthrown with pitchforks, but, ever since guns were introduced, people have needed to have at least some guns to keep tyrants away for more than a week or two.  Guns are critical, but you don't necessarily need the same or better guns that the army has in order to resist a future US tyrant.  Remember, if stuff starts hitting the fan, either the army is going to defect into two competing armies, and it will be obvious which of the two you should join up with to protect your rights, or they'll open up the armory so we can all resist the invaders together.  You don't need military grade stuff now.  It will be available to you pretty quickly if you do need it though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. You need to go read transcripts from the early congressional conventions.

I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states.  Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788.  That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.  

The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA.  Here are their statements:

• NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
  

If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  

None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny.
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?

You just literally quoted my exact reasoning for why gun rights were given.

Defense of self and the state. It doesn't say anything about defending the federal government, it says the state. Who would be attacking the state? It would be another state or the federal government. The state and the people were very closely related. The people had direct control over their state and could vote them out or deal with it internally. The state then picked the federal representatives. It was all limited federal government then and they wanted to ensure that nothing happened and wouldn't have to fight for freedom again.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states.  Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788.  That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.  

The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA.  Here are their statements:

• NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  
• MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
  

If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  

None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny. 
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?

You just literally quoted my exact reasoning for why gun rights were given.

Defense of self and the state. It doesn't say anything about defending the federal government, it says the state. Who would be attacking the state? It would be another state or the federal government. The state and the people were very closely related. The people had direct control over their state and could vote them out or deal with it internally. The state then picked the federal representatives. It was all limited federal government then and they wanted to ensure that nothing happened and wouldn't have to fight for freedom again.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

States picked senators.  They never picked representatives.  The people always picked representatives.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.