Washington state lawmakers want to ban “military-style semi-automatic weapons,” whatever that means.

I say that because, at least given what’s written in the article, they don’t even know what that means. Probably involves a shoulder thing that goes up, I’m sure.

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

Of course. We must do something. Think of the children.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

It is named for Aaron Sullivan, 18, who was fatally shot last July in Seattle’s Leschi neighborhood, allegedly with an assault-style weapon.

Current owners must pass (more) background checks, because you law-abiding citizens obviously aren’t trustworthy enough. The NICS check and 4473 apparently isn’t good enough. I guess there’s no consideration to the fact that someone illegally in possession of a gun (like these criminal gang members) aren’t going to submit to any background check of any sort. But you know, lawmakers… they’ve got to look tough.

The bill is backed by Seattle’s police department, spokeswoman Renee Witt said. Also pushing it is Washington Ceasefire, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce gun violence. The group plans a news conference today to announce the proposal.

I love the groups that seek to reduce gun violence. Ban the gun and gun violence will go away, right? No, it won’t go away. It may reduce the number of violent acts performed by guns, but sure as heck overall violence will rise. Look at the UK. Gun violence might be down, but overall violence is up. Different implements are used by the criminals (e.g. knives), and law-abiding citizens have fewer and less effective tools at their disposal for protecting themselves. Is this the goal groups like Washington Ceasefire have? Perhaps, but I would like to believe they are just misguided and really want to reduce violence on the whole. That being the case, they should work to address the deeper root causes, instead of trying to ban symptoms that have proven time and time again will not meet their goals.

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned.

“If they’re used in the army, used in the war — that’s what this ban is about,” said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

Oh, we’ve been down this road before. But if that’s the case, it sounds like our AR’s are safe. They aren’t designed for military use, and certainly have much sporting and hunting use.

Really, this just his misguided and ignorant written all over it. Too much to write here. If you’re reading this and don’t know how that’s misguided and ignorant, drop me a line and I’ll be happy to expound.

“We don’t allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that’s an unreasonable restriction,” [Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina] said.

Uh wait a minute. So we already don’t allow people to use stuff used in the army, yet this new ban is about stuff people in the army use. So uh… what are you banning? More ignorance.

And here we are with the notion of “reasonable restrictions.” Please define. And why is your definition the one that wins out? Oh, because you’re the “open-minded” one. I’ve learned about these progressive types. “Open-minded” means “agreeing with me.”

[Rep. Jeanee] Kohl-Welles [D-Seattle] said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren’t suggesting guns be taken from current owners.

Oh yes you are. Requiring background checks for current owners? I suppose if they fail whatever it is you deem as worthy criteria for owning a gun, you will take them away. The mere fact you’re suggesting anything like this just raises the slippery slope.

She [Kohl-Welles] also said she doesn’t believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

“Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?” she asked.

Well, if you consider things like the ancient Chinese repeating crossbows that were first created in 4 B.C…. yeah, I’d say it’s possible the framers could have imagined something like a semi-automatic firearm.

So if the only things protected by our Constitution are things the framers could have imagined, let’s outfit our military with flintlock muskets. Apparently that’s the only legitimate thing. Those framers could never have considered that this country might exist for years or even decades and that things might change. Nah… they were some short-sighted people.

On the same token, did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like the Internet? Guess that “freedom of speech” thing should be banned on the same grounds.