When it comes to hypocrisy and being “factually challenged,” gun prohibitionists in the Evergreen State may be without equal, considering a Thursday email blast from backers of Initiative 1639 complaining about “big spending” by the National Rifle Association.
The Safe Schools, Safe Communities Committee sent out a fund-raising appeal that stated, “The NRA has donated $100,000 to a committee dedicated to stopping I-1639.” That’s the measure aimed at stripping young adults ages 18-20 of their right to purchase a semi-auto modern sporting rifle. It would also create a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of a semi-auto rifle and – according to critics – classify traditional .22-caliber semi-autos such as the Ruger 10/22 and Marlin Model 60 as “assault rifles.” Read the initiative here, paying attention to Page 27, bottom.
UPDATE: The Walla Walla Union Bulletin editorial page this week said the courts should ultimately disqualify I-1639 because the initiative petitions were not printed in accordance with state law.
The editorial notes that the National Rifle Association is challenging the measure, but neglected to mention that Washington state-based gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb is also challenging, in a separate action, the measure’s validity on precisely the grounds mentioned in the editorial. Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue.
But while this gun control group is complaining about the $100,000 donated by the NRA to fight the billionaire-backed initiative, they don’t mention that a handful of wealthy Seattle-area elitists have donated many times that much to the I-1639 campaign war chest; more than $4 million, in fact, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
Apparently, it’s a big threat to their campaign that they are outspending the NRA more than 40-to-1.
Trending: Cartoon of the Day: Tyranny or Freedom?
While this hypocrisy is occurring in the anti-gun initiative campaign, the Seattle Times editorial board is claiming in its blast supporting a temporary restraining order against publication of 3-D gun technology on the Internet that, “These so-called ‘ghost guns’ are invisible to metal detectors.”
Designer Cody Wilson noted in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon that, “In a real sense you can’t [build a gun made completely of 3D printed plastic parts]. Even the Liberator still has to have a metal firing pin.” The Liberator is Wilson’s 3-D single-shot pistol about which anti-gunners are raving.
In addition to the firing pin, that pistol also contains a block of metal required by a 1988 federal law that prohibits manufacture of undetectable firearms. That came about in large part due to the false hysteria generated over the introduction of Glock pistols with polymer frames. At that time, anti-gunners frantically declared that those handguns could get through metal detectors, which was patently false.
Also, the 3-D printers required to produce these guns aren’t inexpensive. And it takes a while for the gun components to actually be manufactured. Criminals, terrorists and crazy people will still get guns by stealing them or via some other illicit means.
But facts do not seem to matter much in the gun control debate.