In this neighborhood are the bully boys so tough that initiative 594 cannot be discussed in public?

Well of course there is always the possobility that you all are in agreement with this initiative. ???

594 is a joke and is impossible to enforce, would cost way too much money, and is a stupid concept to begin with....

that would mean that the president of the US couldnt come here and borrow a congressmans gun to shoot trap...

if people vote yes on this, they shouldnt be allowed to vote...

and before anyone comes off with a wise crack, i dont vote, because my vote means sh!t, the last time i voted i voted for Bush, and look where that got me...

Please,

Do not be that easily mislead, you should realize that the dems know that almost every vote that they can buy counts.

What's the going price on votes? Daddy needs some new wading boots

Silly thread.

no on 594

Already voted - Yes on 594, No on 591. Am I under the illusion that these measures will make a difference? No. But it appears that we have a new dynamic in this State with initiatives. They no longer are just used to make law, they are designed to send a "message". In this case, the message (if the votes are as mine) is to the 2nd Amendment cartel (NRA, Washington Arms, 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc.) that you can not continue to protect 2nd Amendment rights through the continual fear of confiscation. Reasonable measures of control (which the US Supreme Court has already approved) do not equate to the slippery slope where guns get confiscated.

I also get the fact that both sides of this debate resort to emotional arguments to push their position. Evidently, that sort of approach works in the US. Go figure.....

Well if you mean Cosmically I suppose that you are most likely correct, however if you mean a difference regarding gun rights you are wrong, as they already have made a difference, but considering the source, I suppose your comments should be considered 'Par for the course'.

+1000

Little doubt about passage with the happens this week. Just keep on giving up freedoms in the name of safety.

Will I lose this if I vote yes?

A couple of observations...

We as gun owners have to be really careful with the "criminals will do it anyway, so it's no use to make it illegal" argument...because that applies to every single law ever made. Murderers know it's illegal and do it anyway, so do heroin dealers who sell to teenagers and white collar criminals who steal all of our retirement funds.

That argument sounds really great until you realize that it's meaningless.

I appreciate the slippery slope arguments, but sometimes they make gun owners look like we don't give twoshits about anything except our guns, and in a lot of cases it looks that way because it is true.

There's a legitimate fear about giving an inch and them taking a mile...there should also be a legitimate fear about not giving an inch so eventually they will take ten miles, fuckyouverymuch.

Next, being stupid and ripping on gun control advocates, some of which have been the victims of gun crimes, only makes you look like a stupid redneck...which is fine, if that's what you are, but it won't help the rest of us gun owners who wish you would just shutthefuckup.

Need some concrete examples? If you want to speak in favor of gun rights read anything that Dogfish ever writes about it. If you want to sound like a jackass and screw the rest of us gunowners with your profound stupidity just write most the stuff that most of you do.

Fish on...

Todd

Each and every time this type of crap comes up I would like to hear how it would help.......anything. I should not have to prove it would not take my rights away with examples.....You should have to prove it will help the status of where we are now. Facts are it won't. Just more hoops/regulations that are put on us. All those hoops/regulations equal more money and power for them.

This country has gotten so pathetic with giving up things for protection. Turn on any news outlet any night and they have on some POS Pol from one of the "Parties" talking up new BS to protect us. Makes me need to change the channel. This is no different. They are just trying to protect us by keep the guns away from the evil doers around every corner trying to get you. Dems have guns and school shootings-Repubs have terrorism.

Every POS Repub pol I hear talk of terrorism make me want to puke. Give up a little more of your freedoms because the terrorist will get you. How many have been killed in the last 10 years in the US by terrorists that they must trample on our rights for. I would bet more die per day in the US in car accidents than have in the last ten years in terrorist attacks. More killed by lightening. But F--- they need more money, more power and more freedoms to protect us.

Same crap with Dem Pols and guns. All to protect us. F--- you. The news outlets that wash their balls or stinky C's are just as bad. Everything is about fear and keeping the sheep in line. What a generation of Pu--ies we have become. Our forefathers would not have stood for it.

Rant over as I need go hide under my bed with my house wrapped in plastic. Ebola is out there you know. Maybe they should raise our taxes as the CDC must not have enough money to protect us.

Book it Dano - Todd is correct but likely is pissing into the wind.

I think that 594 is a perfect example of what you say. I personally don't have a problem with requiring background checks (possessing a cpl should count as a background check) for purchases of firearms. I do have a problem with having to go through an FFL for every 'transfer'.

The initiative is poorly written.

Seems like a no brainer to me right there.

Just as I have no problem throwing people in jail who do not secure their firearms and let someone steal/take/"borrow" them and a crime is committed, or a horrible accident happens, I have no problem holding those who lend out or sell their guns to someone who does not have a CPL accountable, too.

Something else I should have put in my last post...anyone who compares guns to spoons, cars, or hat racks ought to shutthefuckup, too. You sound like fuckin idiots.

Fish on...

Todd

Only a dumbass would vote for a law that is 100% unenforceable!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that can never be proven in a court of law!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that has no funding source to ensure it is enforced!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law where 27 of 39 State Sheriff’s have come out publicly against it!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that could make millions of legal Wa state gun owners a felon overnight!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that could make most law enforcement officers a felon overnight!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that would require Government’s permission to loan or sell a firearm to a friend or family member!!
Only a dumbass would vote for a law that has absolutely no intent of keeping guns out of felon’s hands or in reducing gun crimes!!

So, of course, this law will pass because you, my friends, live in a state mostly populated by dumbasses!!!!

So you truly believe we need Government consent for me to lend you my shotgun??

Or that if I where to bonk you upside the head with a spoon, steal your gun and then use it in a crime that you should be charged a felony??

There is no requirement to pass a background check or carry a CPL to possess a shotgun, and if you hit me with a spoon and stole my gun it would be kind of hard to hold me accountable for that.

Before you get your schit all turned inside out Greg note above that I didn't say that anyone should vote for this initiative...what I did say is to stop sounding like an idiot when you make your arguments against it, which is advice that you clearly are not interested in taking.

Fish on...

Todd

I want to see what happens if both gun initiatives pass.

if you buy a shotgun at a store like alot of people do, you have to fill out the form for the NICS (FBI) check which is a requirment for you to purchase the firearm no matter what it is and walk out of that store with it... usually you wait 5-7 days before you can come back, with a CPL you can walk straight out and home with it....

you know this im sure tho...

What fuels this is residential burglaries. Break into a house, steal guns, commit crimes with said guns. Rinse and repeat.

Todd,
No where in the 18 pages of this law does it separate shotguns from any other firearm so not only can I not lend you my shotgun I couldn't teach you how to use it at a gun range as safety training is also not exempted.

I'll admit that the spoon analogy was pretty bad. So I'll try again . On the way back from hunting we stopped by the Curlew bar for a beer and some food. So if all four the the rifles that were left in the truck (remember it's illegal to bring a firearm into a bar) were stolen and then used in a crime you believe I should be held accountable?

"Just as I have no problem throwing people in jail who do not secure their firearms and let someone steal/take/"borrow" them and a crime is committed, or a horrible accident happens,"

And all the dumbass comments were re written quotes from state sheriff's comments

A law enforcement officer can state under oath that he/she witnessed you running a red light. Or a camera witnessed it. A law enforcement officer cannot under oath state that a particular firearm was purchased in the state of Wa.

I mean under what situation could a DA even bring charges? We saw them make a sale/transfer in the PD parking lot?? "Are you telling me your neighbor and you drove to Idaho to make this transaction." "yes. :)"

Greg, locking them in your car is "securing them"...leaving a handgun on your dresser where you six and nine year old find it is not.

Fish on...

Todd

That'll never happen. Our courts and constitution value the privacy of the home and vehicles of citizens with the highest regard.

how many crimes are committed by people going to a gun show and getting a firearm there? im not saying its none, and that its not an issue, but wouldnt you rather have an undercover cop in Belltown or down an alley on Jackson vs standing in a gun show?

far more guns used in crimes are bought off the street than at shows...

thats just my opinion tho..

FUK.GOV IN DA ASS! I WILL NOT COMPLY....PERIOD.

FUK.GOV IN DA ASS! I WILL NOT COMPLY....PERIOD.

That's what these guys said:

http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/30-pistols-stolen-from-Lakewood-gun-store-280979482.html

Quantico is a joke, they are the equivalent of what Bullseye was when the AR(s) got stolen and Malvo and company did their sh!t... i went in there 1 time, and i will never return...

this will never happen, a cop couldnt loan his brother who is say also a cop his gun for training, you couldnt rent a gun before you shot it like some shops provide, ect...

its unenforceable, stupid, and anyone that says yes should go talk to DanS....

Ballsy calling that business a joke. It's a veteran owned business that supplies lots of gear to leo and military personnel.

so did/does Bullseye...

Feds did the same thing and people died.

fuk guns all around.

Vote Yes on I-wrk to keep guns out of the hands of the chronically unemployed.

No exemption for Nate.

Fixed it..... being pissed at someone who's gun was stolen and the stealer commits a crime is ridiculous.... Hell with humans armed gaurding the nations capitol someone made it in.

Read the whole sentence...it's only a problem for the owner if they fail to secure their gun.

It's still stolen if you leave it sitting on your coffee table and your front door open while you are drinking a 40 and smoking a Pall Mall on the back porch, and if you do that and someone walks right in and takes your gun then you are a dipshit that deserves to rot for it, too.

If you don't have your firearm under your control then lock it up...it ain't hard.

Fish on...

Todd

I-594 is a faith-based initiative sponsored and supported by folks who need to believe that by passing a law, gun violence will be reduced, regardless of what a logical analysis concludes.

I was taken aback last weekend when my sister told me that she is voting for it, and I know she is not easily deterred from logic. I-594 is probably going to pass because of its strong emotional appeal. This initiative is one further example that logic and emotions are not a good fit.

Sg

Hear Hear

Part of that issue what my point is...the emotional kneejerk jackass reactions by some gun advocates contribute to the problem far more than they help it.

Just read what an IQ 74 dimwit like Sol Dunce wrote above...it's not reasonable gun owners who use facts and logic to make arguments that drive the emotional factors over the facts, it's idiots like Sol Dunce who do...to the detriment of all the rest of us.

It's hard enough to have a reasonable conversation with a sane person about it...but when idiots like Sol Dunce not only yell the loudest but do it while reveling in their idiocy, then we end up getting what idiots like him deserve.

Fish on...

Todd

If you believe a firearm cannot be stolen while "locked up" your wrong.. That was my entire point.... Not that someone left it unattended and it was stolen....

"steal" was your words....


My bother in law had his entire gun safe stolen while him and my sister were out of town on business..... I guess if one of his guns commits a crime they should be punished....

Exactly...

Timber, I said to read the whole sentence, and now I'll say it again...if you leave your gun unsecured and it is stolen then you get to burn, too.

Locking it up and having it stolen is not "leaving it unsecured".

Fish on...

Todd

No, it's not funny...because I am not talking to anti-gun folks, I am talking to idiots like Sol Dunce who profess to be pro-gun but hurt gun advocates far more than antis ever will.

Fish on...

Todd

You didn't miss anything....... Just Todd rambling thinking he's funny with the 40 and pall mall instead of really thinking about it....

Sol Dunce has an IQ of 74? Who'd a thunk it?

Quit whining you drippy kUNT.

You're missing a 1 in front of the 7 SG.

Sol hook.

Mine is 401...one higher than Red Stein.

nope. Just like everyone should lock their cars. If you don't and it gets stolen it's all on you. But it shouldn't be illegal to not lock it up. Know your environment and act accordingly.

ok with that premise, your house is your car, you dont carry a 1700 pound gun safe in it, so if your window gets smashed in your locked car, should you still get in trouble?

cuz most people lock their houses and still have firearms stolen...

gun safes also dont stop anything, they hinder it...

There are guns safes for cars and reread my post Columbo.

I have one in my truck, that only gets used seldom. I carry everywhere I go where it's legal. <wink> Because I'm a very responsible person with no police record. Been carrying since 85'...never once had to draw my weapon. I agree with SG that I594 will sadly pass. The recent school shooting didn't do us any favors.

SCREW LIBERALS LIKE TODD AND HIS ILK.

I carry everywhere. Being exempt has its perks

you are missing the point... sh!t will happen, if someone wants something you have they will take it...

locked or not...

and dont forget, cops get their guns stolen too...

Get a job schmuck.

[quote=Evo]you are missing the point... sh!t will happen, if someone wants something you have they will take it...

locked or not...

and dont forget, cops get their guns stolen too... [/quote

But why not lock it up and add an ounce of deterance? Your point of view is one of a victim.

Most cops that have their weapons stolen often leave them unsecured.

again, you are missing the point..

if someone wants something, they will get it...

you lock it up in your car, what happens if the car gets stolen? you cant steal a house...

if you leave your pistol on the table and your kid gets it and kills a classmate yeah, you go to jail to.... if you have a 12 gauge in your locked house by your bed and someone kicks the door in while you are on vacation and takes said gun, calling them irresponsible because it wasnt locked up inside an enclosure that could be broken into just like the enclosure they just broke into to get to said enclosure, is fvckin stupid....

if someone wants your sh!t with ill intent, they will take it... if none of you have figured that out yet, you have a rude awakening coming...

Not worth it RB3, and don't argue with Hank either, he thinks he wins by being that last person to have their say. Proof is his tens of thousands of posts.

They are not missing the point..you are..you cant create laws that curtail to everyone in every specific situation, they are created from a broad range of dumbfacks actions and designed to cover a large net. Fear mongering over specifics does nothing to help anyone in the long run, it's not how the law was intended or written... bit the wording may save your ass someday when your on the victims side of things

And if you want an example of how "wording" comes into play in these and other "common sense" cases (not to change the subject) but reference the recent king county charges against a young C.P. Sticken woman held captive for 9 months, people responsible get 9 month in home monitoring BECAUSE of the wording of charge limitations and etc

Thousands upon thousands new laws are passed every year, very few of them are less restrictive on our private lives.

Who needs guns anyway? Yeah I do own guns but I don't understand the gun fanatics. I'm sick and tired of the NRA telling me how to vote!

It would be hard to reason with logic like that.

That decision was deplorable...judge should be horse whipped and staked to an ant pile.

Even as a life member of NRA I am for some type of background check for gun purchases,( I know not the party line and I may be in the minority here, but so be it) But this is a badly worded and needs to be struck down.

So I guess when this passes I will become a felon.

I am in possession of my two stepson's weapons since they are both deployed with the military and out of the state and country. I find it highly offensive that we will have to go through a background check so that they can get their legally owned weapons back.
All three of us have our concealed carry licenses.

Fishy

Not that I am aware of.

I-594 would make the event in this thread illegal.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/706726/1.html

I loaned a number of kids the use of my shotguns for the hunt.

I-594 is horribly written and makes currently lawful citizens into unwitting criminals.

Dogfish. Your hunt would likely be allowed under at least two exceptions to the statute.

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting

I cut and paste these two exceptions directly from the proposed 594. I am assuming you are lawfully allowed to possess firearms and have completed training required and are licensed to hunt.

Because it was put and take on private property no licenses were required after I checked into it with the WDFW wildlife section, so I dropped that requirement. There were a number of kids who had not passed hunter ed, nor did they have licenses, thereby not fitting into the provisions of the proposed law as written.


Some of the kids didn't have training or licenses.

Early results are looking very good!

I would disagree.

Dog - one of the beauties of America. Reasonable people can disagree and not go off the deep end. As long as we are given the opportunity, we'll live to fight another day.....

What a bunch of cowards and sheep live in this state. I guess it is now illegal to fly across the mountains for a whitetail hunt and borrow a buddies gun. Have to take the time, baggage fees and pain in the a$$ of checking a firearm.

Always nice to see a knee jerk reaction that limits rights and gives the state another reason to arrest/fine law abiding citizens. Don't all the citidiots feel safer now????

The majority of the wet side of this state went of the deep end years ago. 594 passing is just more proof of it, as if anyone really needs any more proof.

I find it amusing that a buncha grumpy old guys that live in Washington, can't stop talking about how stupid people that live in Washington are.

"Can't stop talking" about it, really? And besides, I'm not grumpy, but then, I'm not as easily amused as you are either.

I find it somewhat surprising that I find myself agreeing with KK again.

594's passing was but another case of emotions triumph over reason.

Same here.

Fish on...

Todd

If A=B and B=C then, C must also equal A.

Spokane, Whitman, and Asotin Counties all won for 594. Yakima, Benton, and Walla Walla Counties all had less than a 55 - 45 count against. This was not a case where the rest of the State went one direction and King County went another. For me, it's a proud day to be a Washingtonian!

Uh---------O.K. it just proves to me that ignorance has no borders.

The whole state, conservatives and liberals alike are vulnerable to their own emotions. And that can over-ride logic when it comes to voting on an initiative like 594. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence. And background checks prevent felons and mentally disturbed people who are in the database from purchasing guns via any seller who is required to perform background checks. It all seems like it should work, so long as you don't consider that the overwhelming preponderance of gun acquisitions by felons and the mentally disturbed is not through sellers who perform background checks. And having 594 as law won't change that outcome one bit.

But at the emotional level, it seems like a win. After all, the proponents beat the NRA! Only time will show that it has no effect on reducing gun violence. It's possible that reducing gun violence wasn't actually the goal of the proponents, but that's a different story.

Sg

True dat....geeeez

Salmo, I don't disagree. However for those of us who believe that the NRA is an organization that does not have the best interests of Americans at heart, a defeat for them is a good thing.

Yikes. Anyone who is so partisan they would pass a law making law abiding citizens criminals just to have a 'win" against the NRA needs their voting rights rejected. And often I would agree, f--- the NRA but damn there has to be a better way. I can not believe I am saying it as I hate that they overrule the people but since they do it all the time anyway....I hope this is rejected by the courts.

I also voted no on both measured.

eddie you are an idiot!!!!

You guys only have yourselves to blame. You should've campaigned a lot harder on PP. We all know the power of this forum.

Maybe a few vote no 594 avatars wouldve bolstered the cause. You failed yourselves!

Tunacanner,

You don't come off as very bright yourself by calling Eddie an idiot. He has his reasons, and many of us disagree with him. Obviously a majority of voters did agree with him, however.

Sg

Isn't that the way it is. If you don't agree with me you are stupid.

We live in a state where any laws regarding gun rights are going to be skewed towards more restrictions, rather than less, if most voters are left to their own devices.

If we as gun owners want to buck that obvious disadvantage then we need to convince people who would otherwise vote for more restrictions to go against their kneejerk reactions to vote for them, and come over to our side.

To that end, the majority of gunowners who make the most noise are complete fuckin idiots like Sol Dunce, and spend exactly zero time trying to convince anyone who gun owners need to convince.

When any law restricting guns is proposed gun owners flip out and say stupid schit like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!", and compare guns to spoons and hammers.

Guess how well that works?

Then laws are proposed to restrict people, rather than guns, which you would think gun owners would jump all over, especially considering they say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" all the time.

Do they? Of course not...instead they answer with the one single answer that they have to every single issue that ever comes up...ever...in any conversation about guns:

We need more guns.

Guess how well that works?

Back to the folks that need to be convinced to vote against their kneejerk reactions...they're already put off by the obvious hypocrisy in the typical gun owner's argument, and how do gun owners respond to that?

They call them idiots, and fools, and say all sorts of stupid schit that proves that they are probably not stable enough to even own a slingshot, much less a firearm.

Hell, idiots like Sol Dunce probably shouldn't even own a spoon.

Guess how well that works?

When the great majority of the country sees a problem with gun violence, and the great majority of the country wants background checks and other things to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable idiots, then something is going to change.

What is going to change is completely up to gun owners...if they want to effect useful change that they can live with then gun owners better damn well get their asses to the table and come up with something...anything...other than "we need more guns"...because that argument will never, ever, ever work.

Unfortunately gun owners can't stop stepping on their own dicks, they intentionally alienate the very voters they need on their side, and they act like complete imbeciles while they do it.

And then they complain about it...when it's their own fault.

Now my gun rights are further restricted in Washington State, and I don't fault all those darn liberals or anyone else who voted to do so...that's what they do, and what they will always do until another viable alternative is proposed.

No, I fault idiots like Sol Dunce, and the rest, who act like liberal plants in the debate, because they are far more effective at causing the restriction of gun rights than any liberal could ever be.

Ever.

Thanks.

Fish on...

Todd

If every gun owner presented as reasoned and cogent arguments as Todd and Dogfish (Salmo as well although I don't know if he is a gunowner), then I would be fine with unfettered access. However, that is not the case and it is led by the NRA that believes that any restriction on guns is "They're coming to take my guns away" which, by the way, has proven to be financially very successful for them. I believe that they need to be taken down a notch or two and this Initiative presented a very effective way to do that. Just as it is the right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms, it is my right to vote in what I believe is my best self interest and in the best interests of my Country. And that I will continue to do.

For those that think I'm an idiot, please know that I've been called worse in a much more effective way. And yet somehow I survive.....

Well of coarse you and every other legal voter have that right. And I have no doubt that you and many other voters will continue to vote believing that their vote is in their best interest, and (or) in the best interest of their Country. I do however question the ability of many voters to be able to understand either what is in their, or their Country's best interest. Of course possessing that ability has no bearing on the right to vote, which is why campaigns are run the way they are.

You're not convinced yet????

The basketball czar?

There is no need to worry, as once our new Attorney General is confirmed she will surely reign in Obama and put an end to his lawless ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6Qe9DJp4A [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6Qe9DJp4A[/video]

That guy is an idiot. Two minutes of research found this:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/docs/firearmsOnlineSlides.pdf

sat·ire
noun
noun: satire

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature;

That covers pistols only. There are other types of firearms.