Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't your wife and girlfriends have their own guns & carry permits?
You're asking a lot of questions: here's one for you: why do you think the Washington Ass'n of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) opposes this? Wouldn't it be in their interest if this law would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
I don't really care what Washington does.
This is one of the reasons my son changed jobs, and will soon be leaving Washington and moving back to Montana.
IMO, it is a VERY smart move for him!
I can't believe people actually think that a CRIMINAL will obey the law and get a background check before buying a gun, or that a black market firearms dealer will fill out the paperwork and require the purchaser to fulfill the waiting period.
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard!
Regardless of who supports it or doesn't support it, the idiots in the gun lobby here are getting what they deserve. They could have participated in an effort like this. The late time it tried to go through the legislature, they spent a lot of money pushing Republican candidates who supported background checks out to the point where some changed their votes.
The gun lobby will get the law it deserves. This thing is overwhelmingly supported by the voters here and there's something like 10:1 money difference supporting it.
Should the NRA and their supporters have such criticism for laws like this, then they should put forward a platform and blueprint for states to enact background laws universally.
Regardless of who supports it or doesn't support it, the idiots in the gun lobby here are getting what they deserve. They could have participated in an effort like this. The late time it tried to go through the legislature, they spent a lot of money pushing Republican candidates who supported background checks out to the point where some changed their votes.
The gun lobby will get the law it deserves. This thing is overwhelmingly supported by the voters here and there's something like 10:1 money difference supporting it.
Should the NRA and their supporters have such criticism for laws like this, then they should put forward a platform and blueprint for states to enact background laws universally.
Yes, the gun lobby is getting what they deserve, because all across the county Bills like this have been defeated. as far as this Bill is concerned, please refer to only a few months back when, according to the gun control lobby, the 2013 Assault Weapon ban bill and the bill passed Colorado were ALSO said to have been "overwhelmingly supported." Didn't one result in the bill NOT getting passed, and the other resulted in 2 democrat senators getting the booted by other democrats in a recall? Wasn't there a 7:1 money difference in the recall efforts as well? What good did that do?
Since then, CA gun laws have been dropping like flies. One after the next being found unconstitutional, for example, just a few days ago a court ruled that "California 10-day waiting period to buy gun violates the Second Amendment."
There's universal background checks in several states and they've survived constitutional checks just fine. I live here. I know the state...all of it. This is a done deal. People whining about it should have stepped up to proactively get something done.
There's universal background checks in several states and they've survived constitutional checks just fine. I live here. I know the state...all of it. This is a done deal. People whining about it should have stepped up to proactively get something done.
No one is whining about background checks. They are whining about the other crap in the bill... Just as you all have not read the bill, you haven't read the other post in in thread as well...
Regardless of who supports it or doesn't support it, the idiots in the gun lobby here are getting what they deserve. They could have participated in an effort like this. The late time it tried to go through the legislature, they spent a lot of money pushing Republican candidates who supported background checks out to the point where some changed their votes.
The gun lobby will get the law it deserves. This thing is overwhelmingly supported by the voters here and there's something like 10:1 money difference supporting it.
Should the NRA and their supporters have such criticism for laws like this, then they should put forward a platform and blueprint for states to enact background laws universally.
This is actually a fair point; it's similar to what I've been saying for years now about ObamaCare. It was rammed through with zero bipartisan support/input, on a parliamentary trick in the Senate to avoid filibuster. Dems made their bed; now they can lie in it. Now I suppose you're going to tell me "that's different." Or are you going to surprise me and admit there's a parallel here?
Anyway, we'll see what happens. The money ratio right now is 6:1, not 10:1. Tim Eyman (WA anti-tax guy) always faces a 10:1 or better money disadvantage from public sector unions, yet has gotten things passed. What's going to happen once one after another TV ad has cops urging to vote no on I-594? And after people realize this is an 18 page mess, not a simple background check measure?
Polling at this point is utterly meaningless. The last poll had 32% saying that they would vote for both I-591 and I594, which are polar opposite.
It is funny to me how many liberals want to complain about campaign finance yet love it when their causes have huge monetary support from Billionaires.
By the way last I checked the government was supposed to treat all people equally, and while I know they do not, the fact is that people who feel the need to use a billionaire as the only support to the position, not to mention someones financial standing making their decisions, should not be voting anyways.
There's universal background checks in several states and they've survived constitutional checks just fine. I live here. I know the state...all of it. This is a done deal. People whining about it should have stepped up to proactively get something done.
Background checks on private party sales has never been challenged in court.
Maybe it is best to back up your argument with data showing how infringing on civil rights is needed because of a large amount of criminals purchasing guns via this process that must be stopped.
I wonder how many criminals would even follow such a law if past?
I wonder where criminals actually get the guns they currently have? (Hint: it is not face to face sales).
Maybe you should be asking yourself how will this law actually measurably reduce crime, if it doesn't measurably reduce crime then it should not be passed. The preponderance of the evidence suggest that this law will not make a difference, but you still want it. Why?
I didn't say I personally wanted it. Thus, everything you wrote is useless. Go back, read all of my posts and try again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
