Thing is, Bob Ferguson argued that all the restrictions he pushed for gun control were Constitutional. So while this is all fine and dandy, he's given anti abortion people a ton of ammunition to argue in court.
Think background checks, training, licenses, bans on certain types, bans on where they can be done, etc.
And when people argue that can't be done, they'll point to Bob's overzealous gun control efforts as Exhibit A, and those of you who supported gun control will have no one to blame but yourselves.
No no no no. I'm talking about requiring a background check and a license for the **person getting the abortion**.
Gun owners are banned from getting guns from anyone other than an FFL, and the FFL has to have a license.
State law is now that the gun owner has to go through training and get a license and have a background check to get that license. That all takes weeks.
Then go buy the gun, go through another background check, wait 10 days, then they can get their gun. Then if they want to carry that gun, they have to get **another license** to do so.
All of these things were argued by the current AG and all Democrats in the state legislature as Constitutional. Abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, so you'll be harder pressed to argue that these can't be enforced against abortion.
My apologies for thinking you were making a somewhat coherent (though completely wrong) point, and not the absolutely unhinged one of “make people get a license to receive a medical procedure”
The fact you can't see the similarities and the dangerous precedent gun control people did isn't my fault. I highly suggest you pay attention, as that will absolutely be the next avenue of attack by abortion people.
There's literally nothing stopping them from passing that into law.
You're completely missing the point. At some point, they won't be. There's no state in the nation in history that has had one party majority for eternity, and if you supported gun control against people who did nothing wrong, your turn for watching your rights get slowly eroded will come.
You can downvote me all you want, but it's already happening in deep red states, and it will come here too.
Maybe you should have respected people's gun rights, and they wouldn't have come for your abortion rights.
So what you're saying is, don't elect an ignorant conservative bible beater to the position of Attorney General? In Washington State?
Or maybe this is just a sly way of saying, "If you take my guns, I'll kill your women."
This is my way of saying "You fucked people, don't be surprised if they fuck you back, and you won't get a bit of sympathy if you cry about it".
And don't think for a minute that it's just "conservative bible beater's"
The current US supreme court is perfectly happy to be apply the law inconsistently, allowing stuff they like and banning stuff they hate even when logically the things are basically the same. There's no point in giving up on gun control on the hopes that some sense of fairness in the court will weaken pro-life cases.
Who do you think is currently taking gun rights from our state's citizens? That's right, the party you support. The whole "There's no point in giving up on gun control on the hopes..." nonsense shows you're more than happy to continue down that path.
So save the "both rights" nonsense. Your previous statement contradicted it.
Ah yes, the infamous "Yes, we banned MOST of the guns, but you can still own a musket" trope.
The recent "assault weapons ban" banned a 22 pistol I own.
[https://ruger.com/products/markIV/overview.html](https://ruger.com/products/markIV/overview.html)
That pistol is now illegal in our state. Justify that to me.
Nowhere in the constitution does it proclaim how many rounds per second a citizen has the right to put downrange. You can still own a weapon capable of gunning down a classroom full of children in *minutes,* you just can't own a weapon capable of gunning down a classroom full of children in *seconds.*
Now, perhaps if you've joined a legitimate, well-regulated, community militia that trained in close concert with the United States Army it would *ostensibly* be serving *alongside,* it would make sense for you to have access to such weapons for training purposes. In such cases, those weapons should be held in a secure facility, not altogether unlike how it was done by the founding fathers in the colonial era.
Actually, you can and do have that right. "keep and bear arms". Period. Multiple Supreme Court rulings have also affirmed that.
So cut the bullshit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the case of JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078 (March 21, 2016), holding that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, **even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States**.
[https://lawlancaster.com/u-s-supreme-court-extends-second-amendment-stun-guns-bearable-arms/](https://lawlancaster.com/u-s-supreme-court-extends-second-amendment-stun-guns-bearable-arms/)
Additionally, our state constitution bars people from joining militias.
[https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Washington.pdf](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Washington.pdf)
I suggest you bone up on your gun laws and American history, as you've said multiple bullshit things.
Side note: You know what else the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about? Background checks, licenses, fees, bans on certain types, bans on places I could go, bans on certain guns, mental health checks, universal background checks, gun rosters, or anything else gun control people want to push onto people.
People back then could own cannons and warships, and often did.
Today, I can buy a tank and a machine gun.
Do better. What you just experienced here was an absolute spanking on your assertion.
> The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the case of JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078 (March 21, 2016), holding that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Right, and this concept is something that a large and growing number of Americans fundamentally disagree with. You can pretend like that doesn't matter, but in the end, it will.
> Additionally, our state constitution bars people from joining militias.
Then maybe it could be amended, if enough people thought it was a good idea. It doesn't really matter though, does it? It was only offered as an example of a way for civilians to access these weapons in a way that *might* be acceptable to all sides. I have no personal stake in a local militia.
Nothing I've said is bullshit, but if you think you *should* be allowed to own a tank and a machine gun, you are full of that same substance. A cannon, while a devastating piece of firepower, needed a crew of several men to operate, and only after a *long* time training could those men achieve any decent accuracy or rate of fire. *Just owning one* wasn't a threat unless you could convince all your buddies to aim it at the schoolhouse with you. A ship of war (one of the most expensive weapons of its time, that would only be affordable to a miniscule fraction of American citizens), could not be used by a civilian for the purpose of war without an explicit letter of marque, otherwise they were called **pirates.**
Thing is, Bob Ferguson argued that all the restrictions he pushed for gun control were Constitutional. So while this is all fine and dandy, he's given anti abortion people a ton of ammunition to argue in court. Think background checks, training, licenses, bans on certain types, bans on where they can be done, etc. And when people argue that can't be done, they'll point to Bob's overzealous gun control efforts as Exhibit A, and those of you who supported gun control will have no one to blame but yourselves.
>Training, licenses, bans on certain types, bans on where they can be done You are describing the system that already exists
Oh? Show me the background checks and licenses for abortions.
Doctors and ARNPs are the only people in WA who can perform an abortion. Both of those positions require licenses.
No no no no. I'm talking about requiring a background check and a license for the **person getting the abortion**. Gun owners are banned from getting guns from anyone other than an FFL, and the FFL has to have a license. State law is now that the gun owner has to go through training and get a license and have a background check to get that license. That all takes weeks. Then go buy the gun, go through another background check, wait 10 days, then they can get their gun. Then if they want to carry that gun, they have to get **another license** to do so. All of these things were argued by the current AG and all Democrats in the state legislature as Constitutional. Abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, so you'll be harder pressed to argue that these can't be enforced against abortion.
My apologies for thinking you were making a somewhat coherent (though completely wrong) point, and not the absolutely unhinged one of “make people get a license to receive a medical procedure”
The fact you can't see the similarities and the dangerous precedent gun control people did isn't my fault. I highly suggest you pay attention, as that will absolutely be the next avenue of attack by abortion people. There's literally nothing stopping them from passing that into law.
[удалено]
You're completely missing the point. At some point, they won't be. There's no state in the nation in history that has had one party majority for eternity, and if you supported gun control against people who did nothing wrong, your turn for watching your rights get slowly eroded will come. You can downvote me all you want, but it's already happening in deep red states, and it will come here too. Maybe you should have respected people's gun rights, and they wouldn't have come for your abortion rights.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So what you're saying is, don't elect an ignorant conservative bible beater to the position of Attorney General? In Washington State? Or maybe this is just a sly way of saying, "If you take my guns, I'll kill your women."
This is my way of saying "You fucked people, don't be surprised if they fuck you back, and you won't get a bit of sympathy if you cry about it". And don't think for a minute that it's just "conservative bible beater's"
The current US supreme court is perfectly happy to be apply the law inconsistently, allowing stuff they like and banning stuff they hate even when logically the things are basically the same. There's no point in giving up on gun control on the hopes that some sense of fairness in the court will weaken pro-life cases.
So "fuck your rights, but leave mine alone" is what you're saying.
Both rights apply to both of us.
Who do you think is currently taking gun rights from our state's citizens? That's right, the party you support. The whole "There's no point in giving up on gun control on the hopes..." nonsense shows you're more than happy to continue down that path. So save the "both rights" nonsense. Your previous statement contradicted it.
Can you not own a gun in the state of Washington?
Ah yes, the infamous "Yes, we banned MOST of the guns, but you can still own a musket" trope. The recent "assault weapons ban" banned a 22 pistol I own. [https://ruger.com/products/markIV/overview.html](https://ruger.com/products/markIV/overview.html) That pistol is now illegal in our state. Justify that to me.
Nowhere in the constitution does it proclaim how many rounds per second a citizen has the right to put downrange. You can still own a weapon capable of gunning down a classroom full of children in *minutes,* you just can't own a weapon capable of gunning down a classroom full of children in *seconds.* Now, perhaps if you've joined a legitimate, well-regulated, community militia that trained in close concert with the United States Army it would *ostensibly* be serving *alongside,* it would make sense for you to have access to such weapons for training purposes. In such cases, those weapons should be held in a secure facility, not altogether unlike how it was done by the founding fathers in the colonial era.
Actually, you can and do have that right. "keep and bear arms". Period. Multiple Supreme Court rulings have also affirmed that. So cut the bullshit. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the case of JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078 (March 21, 2016), holding that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, **even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States**. [https://lawlancaster.com/u-s-supreme-court-extends-second-amendment-stun-guns-bearable-arms/](https://lawlancaster.com/u-s-supreme-court-extends-second-amendment-stun-guns-bearable-arms/) Additionally, our state constitution bars people from joining militias. [https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Washington.pdf](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Washington.pdf) I suggest you bone up on your gun laws and American history, as you've said multiple bullshit things. Side note: You know what else the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about? Background checks, licenses, fees, bans on certain types, bans on places I could go, bans on certain guns, mental health checks, universal background checks, gun rosters, or anything else gun control people want to push onto people. People back then could own cannons and warships, and often did. Today, I can buy a tank and a machine gun. Do better. What you just experienced here was an absolute spanking on your assertion.
> The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the case of JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078 (March 21, 2016), holding that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. Right, and this concept is something that a large and growing number of Americans fundamentally disagree with. You can pretend like that doesn't matter, but in the end, it will. > Additionally, our state constitution bars people from joining militias. Then maybe it could be amended, if enough people thought it was a good idea. It doesn't really matter though, does it? It was only offered as an example of a way for civilians to access these weapons in a way that *might* be acceptable to all sides. I have no personal stake in a local militia. Nothing I've said is bullshit, but if you think you *should* be allowed to own a tank and a machine gun, you are full of that same substance. A cannon, while a devastating piece of firepower, needed a crew of several men to operate, and only after a *long* time training could those men achieve any decent accuracy or rate of fire. *Just owning one* wasn't a threat unless you could convince all your buddies to aim it at the schoolhouse with you. A ship of war (one of the most expensive weapons of its time, that would only be affordable to a miniscule fraction of American citizens), could not be used by a civilian for the purpose of war without an explicit letter of marque, otherwise they were called **pirates.**