Proposed Washington State gun control law includes annual home 'inspections' for lega

[badrose]

http://www.caintv.com/washington-state-gun-control-l

2nd Amendment advocates argue that, since these measures only affect law-abiding owners, they'll do nothing to prevent violent crime. Such a database would serve only to give the feds a list of people who it could later target with harassment and confiscation.

...oh sorry, they don't like the word "confiscation." They prefer the term "forced buybacks."

Regardless of the terminology, gun control zealots assure you that they only want to know who owns what. They promise the jack boots won't be coming through your front door.

....Unless you live in Washington State, where a recently proposed gun control law initially contained the following:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Yep, if the bill had passed, Pacific Northwesterners would have been able to keep their ill-defined "assault weapons." All they'd have to do is acquiesce to the elimination of their 4th Amendment rights and endure annual warrantless "inspections." Failure to comply with the searches would have carried a penalty of up to a year in prison.

[KeithKSR]

More progressive, aka liberal, aka communist, drivel.

[CitizenBBN]

Liberals want everyone to have lots of rights, unless you do something with them they don't like, then you don't get any b/c you're not using them for the correct things.

[BigBlueBrock]

More progressive, aka liberal, aka communist, drivel.

It is categorically ignorant to equate a progressive/liberal position with Communism, as being progressive/liberal is relative to the political environment in which you reside. The proposed legislation notwithstanding, America's progressives have little in common with Communism.

Liberals want everyone to have lots of rights, unless you do something with them they don't like, then you don't get any b/c you're not using them for the correct things.

Conservatives want everyone to have lots of rights, unless you have a vagina or you're a dude that wishes to marry another dude, then you don't get any because you're not using them for the correct things.

[CitizenBBN]

Conservatives want everyone to have lots of rights, unless you have a vagina or you're a dude that wishes to marry another dude, then you don't get any because you're not using them for the correct things.

If you're waiting for me to defend social conservatism don't hold your breath, but then again they don't claim that we have to be tolerant and supportive of choices that differ from ours whereas liberals beat that drum constantly only to forget it all when the choice is one they don't like. I'm also not going to buy into the "they're doing it too" to excuse these contradictions. This just happened to be a thread about liberals and not social conservatives.

I disagree with both, but liberals add more hypocrisy to the relative equality of the two sides in willingness to use government to make people conform to their morality. They both have some of course, but liberals have more and it is more pervasive in their mainstream policies.

[BigBlueBrock]

My point wasn't "They're doing it, too," it was "That argument sounds silly and here is why." Making broad generalizations about a group based on the positions of some isn't conducive to rational discourse. I also disagree that Democrats are more hypocritical than Republicans and that Democrats are more interested in pushing personal morality than Republicans.

[CitizenBBN]

My point wasn't "They're doing it, too," it was "That argument sounds silly and here is why." Making broad generalizations about a group based on the positions of some isn't conducive to rational discourse. I also disagree that Democrats are more hypocritical than Republicans and that Democrats are more interested in pushing personal morality than Republicans.

I don't think about it in terms of formal political parties. Too many subgroups and both parties in fact have nothing to do with political economy. they just spew out whatever they think gives them the best chance of being elected. Neither really has a political bent, it's just two teams with fans who root for them and they say whatever they think the fans want to hear while trying to steal each other's fans with promises of giveaways at the games.

As I said, the difference is liberals are more likely to use individual rights to justify their policies that often end up restricting individual rights, thus their increased level of hypocrisy. No doubt each policy has to be examined individually but I see more individuals on that side having more serious internal inconsistencies. Both sides have plenty no doubt.

In this case the shoe fits very well. I hope the 7th Circuit's view takes off not just in gun laws but everything, where any encroachment on individual choice must be justified not by the theory of public safety but by some kind of substantive proof of public safety being improved enough to justify the encroachment. In this case, given how few people are killed by modern sporting rifles each year, the law would never stand. Wish we could do that for about 10,000 other laws.

I do find it telling that those on here who are socially more conservative were more than willing to support a platform where we removed social issues from the national party platform and left such things to the states, focusing on the issues of limited government at the federal level, both social and economic. I have to wonder how many on the left would agree to such a broad and sweeping compromise. Maybe they would, I don't know, but given they want expansion of government in general I don't see how it would be consistent for them. For conservatives it is a more consistent position.

[BigBlueBrock]

As I said, the difference is liberals are more likely to use individual rights to justify their policies that often end up restricting individual rights, thus their increased level of hypocrisy. No doubt each policy has to be examined individually but I see more individuals on that side having more serious internal inconsistencies. Both sides have plenty no doubt.

You would see it that way likely because you tend to be more critical of their positions (since you disagree with them more often) and examine them more closely as a result. I don't think one side is generally more likely to attempt restricting individual rights than the other, though there are specific groups within each that might do so.

I don't like to argue vs a "liberal position" or "conservative position" anyway, due to the implication that being a "liberal" or being a "conservative" is inherently "bad" when you do that. Most everyone has opinions that lie on both sides of the spectrum (I know I do, which is why I've been a registered Independent for years), so it makes more sense to argue vs a singular position without dragging all of the left or right into it.