Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Remodel

School Shooting in Washington State

Recommended Posts

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Henley voted for this law, not understanding what it actually does. It seems like that was the goal of the law's proponents, to get people to vote yes without understanding it. ...

 

 

Yes, they don't seem to like it when you use the word "transfer" in the way the law uses it and talk about what it means in practice.

 

 

...

--Lots of distraction was generated over the use of the word transfer. I understand that transfer is gun culture code for a gun barter; these complaints seemed tiresome, weak, and vaporous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Henley voted for this law, not understanding what it actually does. It seems like that was the goal of the law's proponents, to get people to vote yes without understanding it. Of course that is what the same people keep accusing the NRA of doing. This is why I believe we need to make voting more difficult. People don't take it seriously even when they do vote. By and large, people do not value their vote and so we get shitty laws passed and politicians elected based on rumors and lies.

I never thought landowner thing was such a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Henley voted for this law, not understanding what it actually does. It seems like that was the goal of the law's proponents, to get people to vote yes without understanding it. Of course that is what the same people keep accusing the NRA of doing. This is why I believe we need to make voting more difficult. People don't take it seriously even when they do vote. By and large, people do not value their vote and so we get shitty laws passed and politicians elected based on rumors and lies.

I never thought landowner thing was such a bad idea.

 

I think that is still too low a barrier. Something like national service being required first, combined with a history of paying taxes, and land ownership is probably getting close. I have become convinced that until people really value their vote, nothing substantive will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, no vote for the NY trust fund babies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, no vote for the NY trust fund babies?

 

I am rapidly approaching the point where I stand on my porch and yell at people to get off my lawn. If things continue on this trajectory, I am not going to want anyone to vote but me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

 

Back round?

 

rs_293x473-140211085834-634-Kim-Kardashi

 

Check!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

 

Back round?

 

rs_293x473-140211085834-634-Kim-Kardashi

 

Check!

eww

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

 

Yeah, I bet it is altered as well. Altered to remove the spousal borrowing loophole and the gift giving to cousins loophole and the bambi murderers loophole. Have fun with your new law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local rules are good, unless they arent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

 

Back round?

 

rs_293x473-140211085834-634-Kim-Kardashi

 

Check!

eww

 

Just to keep it sailing related. That is a sheet anchor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local rules are good, unless they arent

 

I have said I actually like that they passed the law out there. I fully expect that their suffering can be used as a warning to other states that Bloomy is a lying sack of shit and not to trust his gang of professional whiners. It will be useful to have that to point to if Wolf ever starts trying to pull some bs here. Does not mean I will not poke fun at idiots who fell for the lies and voted for this POS law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

 

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

 

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

Now that you know the law contains built-in nonsense of which you were obviously unaware, you are sure it will be changed?

 

Gun nutterz tried to point out problems with exemptions on transfers, but were ignored.

 

Who do you think will push to loosen that law and make it sensible? And who will fight that effort? I'm going to guess gun nutterz to the former and billionaires to the latter. I might just dig this thread up over the years with updates. Wanna take a guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of thing that happens when parents leave a rifle lying around the house where the kid can get it. He gets off the school bus, notices some tracks as he's walking home, gets the super-smart black dog and the 30.06 and BANG! Bacon! No adult supervision, no BG check on the transfer. Just another day in rural America. He should get a medal for the environmental service.

 

15812_10204237732777526_5177976436371231

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going after them today.

 

Will there be suckling pigs on a spit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have. This is the gun table at my 2001 party. Some belong to me, some to my wife, some to other people, all available for anyone present to shoot.

 

No flow chart, no FFL standing by collecting fees, and we didn't cause a single school shooting.

 

guntable.jpg

 

True. But you have no evil black rifles present - so of course none of those guns could be dangerous. The FauxK-47 is probably the closest thing.... but it has a thumbhole stock, so its ok and therefore not a danger to anyone.

 

Tom should be careful with black guns, what is the old saying- Once you go black you will never go back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ebola

 

School shootings

 

I know which one is more likely to impact my family

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ebola

 

School shootings

 

I know which one is more likely to impact my family

What about Ebola-tipped bullets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ebola

 

School shootings

 

I know which one is more likely to impact my family

 

Prepper.

 

Now that is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victim disarmament zones are dangerous to young adults as well as kids.

 

Another attempted surrender gone horribly wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

I agree that the list of 74 "shootings" is certainly disingenuous. ...

 

 

The list has grown.

 

 

In total, there have been 88 school shootings since 26 individuals, including 20 first-graders, died in a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety. Last month, an alleged gunman opened fire at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Washington and killed four classmates and himself.

 

I guess that's 89 now. In our effort to protect high school and elementary school kids, it's important to track what happens to adult college students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to panic.

 

Gun Store Opens Near School!

 

Where to start? I guess with the second picture caption, which says the store opened near two schools. The article clarifies that this means one school and one administration building.

 

A gun store that recently opened across the street from the Franklin City Schools administration office and about 200 yards away from the junior high school has some residents and district officials concerned about safety, particularly in the wake of several school mass shootings in the past two years.

...Franklin Schools Superintendent Mike Sander was not too pleased with the district’s new neighbor.

“Unfortunately, it’s there across the street,” Sander said of the gun store. “We don’t like it and expressed our displeasure to the city manager’s office.”

...

“I know it’s a business, but it shouldn’t be that close to a school,” said resident Orville Griffith. “These teens might go across the street, buy a gun, then go across the street and shoot up (the school).”

Wetzel said that’s unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, his store isn’t open during school hours (store hours are 4 to 8 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays). Second, to come into his shop, you must be at least 18 or with a parent or guardian, he said.

...

There are no laws that prohibit gun shops from locating near schools. In fact, cities are prohibited from regulating and zoning gun shops per federal law, said Franklin Law Director Donnette Fisher.

...

resident J.R. Nance said he would feel better if the gun shop’s location was at least a couple of miles away from the school.

“Because of the kids,” he said. “I feel it’s dangerous.”

 

Resident Griffith's phantom fears are unlikely to be realized.

 

There is no federal law prohibiting regulating and zoning gun shops. Many states have taken that authority from local governments, as noted elsewhere, but the feds don't.

 

The store's address is 177 East 6th St. Franklin OH. I wonder whether resident Nance has ever looked at a map of the area and drawn a circle with a radius of two miles around every school? Or even one mile? He is in effect saying that gun stores that are closed during school hours should be out in the countryside.

 

Common sense gun control or hoplophobia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSU alumni lawyers are very dangerous, generally speaking. Couple that with Texas residency and you have a powder keg on your hands. His facebook page shows bible verses and links to conspiracy theories about the government reading people's minds, who thought he was a government target or something.

 

Local law enforcement trained for such a situation about a week ago. Well done to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FSU alumni lawyers are very dangerous, generally speaking. Couple that with Texas residency and you have a powder keg on your hands. His facebook page shows bible verses and links to conspiracy theories about the government reading people's minds, who thought he was a government target or something.

 

Local law enforcement trained for such a situation about a week ago. Well done to them.

Did you see the darkness surrounding his heart? Very dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to panic.

 

Gun Store Opens Near School!

 

Where to start? I guess with the second picture caption, which says the store opened near two schools. The article clarifies that this means one school and one administration building.

 

 

A gun store that recently opened across the street from the Franklin City Schools administration office and about 200 yards away from the junior high school has some residents and district officials concerned about safety, particularly in the wake of several school mass shootings in the past two years.

 

...Franklin Schools Superintendent Mike Sander was not too pleased with the districts new neighbor.

 

Unfortunately, its there across the street, Sander said of the gun store. We dont like it and expressed our displeasure to the city managers office.

 

...

 

I know its a business, but it shouldnt be that close to a school, said resident Orville Griffith. These teens might go across the street, buy a gun, then go across the street and shoot up (the school).

 

Wetzel said thats unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, his store isnt open during school hours (store hours are 4 to 8 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays). Second, to come into his shop, you must be at least 18 or with a parent or guardian, he said.

 

...

 

There are no laws that prohibit gun shops from locating near schools. In fact, cities are prohibited from regulating and zoning gun shops per federal law, said Franklin Law Director Donnette Fisher.

 

...

 

resident J.R. Nance said he would feel better if the gun shops location was at least a couple of miles away from the school.

 

Because of the kids, he said. I feel its dangerous.

Resident Griffith's phantom fears are unlikely to be realized.

 

There is no federal law prohibiting regulating and zoning gun shops. Many states have taken that authority from local governments, as noted elsewhere, but the feds don't.

 

The store's address is 177 East 6th St. Franklin OH. I wonder whether resident Nance has ever looked at a map of the area and drawn a circle with a radius of two miles around every school? Or even one mile? He is in effect saying that gun stores that are closed during school hours should be out in the countryside.

 

Common sense gun control or hoplophobia?

Well done. With this stuff handed to you on a platter on occasion, you are kinda the Jon Stewart of gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to defend your dog in fights, Ben. You never did answer my question:

 

 

 

 

I no longer have a dog in this fight as I no longer own a gun. ...



Without question I agree that encroachments on any right can lead to encroachments on others. But since no right is absolute, every encroachment will be arguable on a matter of degree, whether it is with restrictions on the ownership of firearms or yelling fire in a movie theater. The later has not seemed to effect my ability to speak my mind at city council meetings.

 

 

So it would be more accurate to say your dog has not yet been hurt in this fight, so all's good.

 

Michael Vick fan?

 



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to defend your dog in fights, Ben. You never did answer my question:

 

You just never know when to quit while you're ahead.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why i support cc. you never know when a lawyer will approach you in a questionable manner. i consider a summons an immediate danger to my safety, and will do everything in my power to preserve my personal well being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victim disarmament zones are dangerous to young adults as well as kids...

Disarmed victims speak out.

 

According to Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) at Florida State, two students present at the shooting that occurred on 20 November could have stopped the shooting but were disarmed by the current Florida law.

 

One of the students was wounded during the shooting. Nathan Scott is a member of SCC at FSU. In spite of his wound, he was able to warn other students about the shooter. The other student was a U.S. infantry combat veteran who says he had a clear shot at the shooter. From the facebook page of SSC at FSU:

 

This is highlighted by two FSU students, one of whom was a US Army Infantry combat veteran and had a clear shot at the shooter, the other is gunshot victime Nathan Scott who is a member of Students for Concealed Carry at FSU who was able to go and warn other students about the shooter despite his injury. Both of these individuals, in spite of having the training and skills necessary to end the shooting, were powerless to prevent it due to Florida's laws.

 

 

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11/two-florida-state-students-were.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

Now that you know the law contains built-in nonsense of which you were obviously unaware, you are sure it will be changed?

Gun nutterz tried to point out problems with exemptions on transfers, but were ignored.

Who do you think will push to loosen that law and make it sensible? And who will fight that effort? I'm going to guess gun nutterz to the former and billionaires to the latter. I might just dig this thread up over the years with updates. Wanna take a guess?

Well, that didn't take long.

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2025125007_nraeditorialxml.html

 

The NRA wants to get rid of some of the aforementioned nonsense, but the Seattle Time$ Corporation $ay$ that lawmakers have much more important things to do than worry about nonsensical infringements on protected rights. Hey, the bill has exemptions! And the NRA, which spent about 1/10 the amount $pent by various billionaires to pass this nonsense, needs to lobby elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, replying to your own posts doesn't increase the value of them. It actually makes you look stupid. And I like you. Think of this as an intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your critique is noted. I will try to be as well behaved in gun threads as you are.

 

 

 

 

...

 

I agree that the list of 74 "shootings" is certainly disingenuous. ...

 

The list has grown.

 

 

In total, there have been 88 school shootings since 26 individuals, including 20 first-graders, died in a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety. Last month, an alleged gunman opened fire at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Washington and killed four classmates and himself.

I guess that's 89 now. In our effort to protect high school and elementary school kids, it's important to track what happens to adult college students.

Oops, I failed.

 

We are up to 95 school shootings recently, if you count things like adult trespassers on a campus at night being shot as a "school shooting."

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/226486-dems-push-to-revive-failed-gun-control-legislation

 

Everytown for Gun Safety released a report Tuesday that found there have been at least 95 more school shootings in which 45 people were killed since Sandy Hook

The report deceptively mentions a renewed push for "universal" BG checks. As discussed in this thread, that would mean a BG check whenever I touch my wife's guns. No one is proposing that, no one ever has, and apart from Sean, I doubt anyone ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 years ago, 20 six year olds were dismembered by a single AR15 in a matter of minutes. The blood shed was flowing so thick, first responders had trouble gaining traction to remove the victims and reassemble the parts. In response, the nation yawned. The school was torn down. The perp's house is now owned by the people and will be destroyed soon too.

Move along folks.

Nothing to see here.

 

School shootings? Bah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 years ago, 20 six year olds were dismembered by a single AR15 in a matter of minutes. The blood shed was flowing so thick, first responders had trouble gaining traction to remove the victims and reassemble the parts. In response, the nation yawned. The school was torn down. The perp's house is now owned by the people and will be destroyed soon too.

Move along folks.

Nothing to see here.

 

School shootings? Bah.

 

That's pretty much the same thing as a guy accidentally shooting himself in the foot at a school, or an unconfirmed report of shots fired near a school.

 

After all, they're all school shootings. All 100 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're counting, what's the real number Tom? I'm sure you can come up with an acceptable number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're counting, what's the real number Tom? I'm sure you can come up with an acceptable number.

 

100, obviously. If we're counting any possible report of a gun being fired at or near a school, whether or not children are present. Does it make sense to you to count an accidental foot shot or an unconfirmed report of a gunshot as a "school shooting" for headline-grabbing purposes? If not, you don't understand the propaganda value of school shootings very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-school-shooter-remembers-son-1-later-174108652.html

 

He did some things right in his life. Everyone remembers Karl for the last 80 seconds of his life," Mark Pierson said Saturday. He said he also wants his son remembered as an Eagle Scout who had leadership qualities and a lot of potential.

Always look on the bright side of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

Now that you know the law contains built-in nonsense of which you were obviously unaware, you are sure it will be changed?

Gun nutterz tried to point out problems with exemptions on transfers, but were ignored.

Who do you think will push to loosen that law and make it sensible? And who will fight that effort? I'm going to guess gun nutterz to the former and billionaires to the latter. I might just dig this thread up over the years with updates. Wanna take a guess?

Well, that didn't take long.

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2025125007_nraeditorialxml.html

 

The NRA wants to get rid of some of the aforementioned nonsense, but the Seattle Time$ Corporation $ay$ that lawmakers have much more important things to do than worry about nonsensical infringements on protected rights. Hey, the bill has exemptions! And the NRA, which spent about 1/10 the amount $pent by various billionaires to pass this nonsense, needs to lobby elsewhere.

 

And from the other side, also as I predicted:

 

Over 1,000 gun owners violate I-594 in public, in front of police.

 

I think my favorite part was the refusal to ask permission for this public assembly. It's clearly about both the first and second amendment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're counting, what's the real number Tom? I'm sure you can come up with an acceptable number.

 

How would you answer your own question? Do you agree with Bloomberg that an unconfirmed report of gunfire should be on the list? How about the 19 year old trespasser on an elementary school campus at night? The guy who accidentally shot his own foot?

 

Those are all offered up as reasons for more restrictions on guns because they're all "school shootings" to Bloomberg.

 

Can you bring yourself to state the obvious like Ben did?

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the list of 74 "shootings" is certainly disingenuous. ...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ben. Your turn.

 

 

Are we counting the latest one?

 

 

... the latest school shooting.

 

 

 

...“Based on the investigation thus far, the shooting appears to be gang-related,” Sgt. Pete Simpson said Friday night in a statement.

 

Police gang investigators “feel comfortable saying this is a gang-related shooting based on some of the people involved,” Simpson added in an interview. Police said they believe the shooter has gang ties. Simpson declined to say which victims might be linked to gangs....

 

Or maybe we won't hear a lot about that one. Hard to tell.

 

It didn't merit its own thread here, not even a suggestion of suing gun manufacturers.

 

NPR couldn't bring themselves to say the G word, but that one strikes me more as a gang shooting than a school shooting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are two competing gun law measures on the ballot in Washington State on Nov. 4th, one expands background checks, one limits them. Pity it takes such a tragedy to get out the vote. That said, I have no idea where or how this kid got the gun.

 

We need more school shootings!

 

$o $ays one of the billionaire $ponsors of I-594. Kidding, of cour$e.

 

 

Hanauer was one of five billionaires including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founders Gates and Paul Allen and Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, who are funding a massive advertising campaign in support of I-594. The five billionaires had contributed $1 million each to the cause, and the committee supporting I-594 had outspent those supporting I-591 by eight to one.

 

Billionaire$ buying election$ i$ $ometime$ bad, or $o I hear.

 

 

 

A few rich dudes shoudn't control what happens to all of us. Right, Jocal?

 

 

When more money equates to more voting power, or even more messaging, "we the people" are the losers.

Money, from any source, is not representative of public benefit. Why should it be levered to play into voting?

 

 

 

Right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gabby and Mark Crow Over Victories

 

 

First, we won in Washington State, the one place background checks were actually on the ballot. A measure mandating universal background checks passed overwhelmingly, while a gun lobby attempt to confuse voters failed.

"Universal" background checks would not have exemptions on some transfers and have never been on any ballot nor been under consideration in any legislature. Only Sean seems to think those are a good idea, and only sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like they successfully confused Henley Hornbrook, who thought he was voting for something that could be rationally justified.

Yes back round checks on sales or transfers of weapons between parties is rationally justifiable , could the bill have been written better with regards to allowing family members to borrow weapons, yes it could have , and I am sure that provision will be altered.

Now that you know the law contains built-in nonsense of which you were obviously unaware, you are sure it will be changed?

 

Gun nutterz tried to point out problems with exemptions on transfers, but were ignored.

 

Who do you think will push to loosen that law and make it sensible? And who will fight that effort? I'm going to guess gun nutterz to the former and billionaires to the latter. I might just dig this thread up over the years with updates. Wanna take a guess?

 

 

And now for a surprise: who is trying to fix the strange exemptions in I-594 under which you can give a rifle to your nephew, but not loan one to your son? The people who wrote it? Of course not.

 

Gun nutterz are trying to fix it, just as predicted.

 

 

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4, alleging that “portions of I-594…are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope,” and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.

 

...

 

“We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Gottlieb explained. “Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here.

 

“This measure effectively infringes upon, if not outright prohibits, the exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” he added.

 

This is, of course, very racist. The SAF has published the words of noted Aryan Nations associate Ted Nugent in paid advertising, so anyone who in any way supports the SAF is obviously an Aryan Nations associate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been a poor choice of words, but it reveals no registration conspiracy.

except to the Sipsey St. Irregulars and your elk.

 

TR you are a silly and foolish fellow

now get back to your crybaby talk, and to your Shannon Twitterfeed, and to your registration fears.

LMFAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Olympia%20gun%20nuts%20post%20I-594_zpsq

 

This Dec. 15, 2014 photo shows protesters of WA's new background check law.

They would read Tom Ray like he was a prophet.

They met in Olympia the day after Sandy Hook, to "transfer" their guns to one another.

They called it an act of civil disobedience, and they decided to visit the state senate gallery, with their anti-tyranny tools.

Within weeks, both houses of our state legislature had banned guns in the state senate viewing gallery.

 

 

I support banning guns from all legislative chambers everywhere. I don't think their open and notorious display was necessary in context, nor necessary to preserve our second amendment rights.

 

But I still have this same question, Jocal. Do you support the fact that

 

 

Because that just doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are straining at a gnat, true enough, but swallowing a camel.

I understand that the wording of a ten-day or thirty day timing clause, borrowed from elsewhere, would solve this minor problem of the term "transfer".

So consider this a major victory for yourself, just huge, and move on to the real subject.

 

The major issue is the merit of the introduction of responsibility for selling guns, with our new, no-compromise background checks.

National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence To: Sen. Schumer, We commend you for your leadership on this crucial public safety measure, and for your comprehensive approach that will both extend the federal background check requirement to private firearm sales, and improve background checks by encouraging states to report all of their disqualifying records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)...As of October 31, 2012, only nine federal agencies out of 61 cited had reported mental health disqualification records to NICS. In addition, 19 states – with a total of 60 million residents – had each submitted fewer than 100 mental health disqualification records to NICS, 14 states had submitted fewer than ten, and one state had submitted zero mental health records. .. Another January 2013 poll by Douglas E. Schoen found that 88% of gun owners, including 86% of NRA members, believe that all gun buyers should be required to pass a background check.

Membership includes:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA);

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA);

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA);

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP);

Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC);

National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE);

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE);

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF);

and the Police Foundation (PF).

By the way, all Gottlieb's talk of countersuits to 1-594 was vapor. The deadline to change or challenge the bill (which passed with a whopping 20% approval rating) passed a week ago, and the CCRKBA filed nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those ^people^ up there are Un-Americans and should be exported to Eskimo Land....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those ^people^ up there are Un-Americans and should be exported to Eskimo Land....

 

Law Enforcement groups want background checks, so it makes them Un-American. Right.

That sounds like the belief of a sub-culture, or the belief of a cult.

Such a statement (or belief) is far from reality.

 

Background checks save lives, and prevent crimes.

In Missouri, gun murders are up 25% since they cancelled background checks, but other murders have not risen.

(No changes were measured in neighboring states, and the national level of gun murder actually decreased during the same timeframe.)

Missouri's new Stand Your Ground laws may have contributed as well, but were controlled in the Cook study.

The time-to-crime figures in adjoining states decreased measurably, as crime traces of MO guns in neighboring states increased.

 

Since background checks have such a positive social effect, it seems that "Un American" is just redneck loser talk, to support guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Adam Lanza is laughing at you right now, knowing that he didn't really have the time nor inclination to bother with a background check that you so desire ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I understand that the wording of a ten-day or thirty day timing clause, borrowed from elsewhere, would solve this minor problem of the term "transfer".

 

Which minor problem is that?

 

Are you actually agreeing with me that it makes no sense to be able to loan a gun to your nephew but not give one to your adult son?

 

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word into the bill.

 

 

...

 

--Lots of distraction was generated over the use of the word transfer. I understand that transfer is gun culture code for a gun barter; these complaints seemed tiresome, weak, and vaporous.

 

 

No, transfer is not "gun culture code" but the legal term in common usage.

 

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous." If gungrabbers had actually listened at the time of the law's passage instead of trying to generate fear that a normal legal term was some sinister code, the law might have been written without the "problem" you admit exists.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

I understand that the wording of a ten-day or thirty day timing clause, borrowed from elsewhere, would solve this minor problem of the term "transfer".

 

Which minor problem is that? The one I just said it was.

 

Are you actually agreeing with me that it makes no sense to be able to loan a gun to your nephew but not give one to your adult son? That's heavy, man, you are truly profound today.

 

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word into the bill. ??? Another mis-quotation.

 

 

...

 

--Lots of distraction was generated over the use of the word transfer. I understand that transfer is gun culture code for a gun barter; these complaints seemed tiresome, weak, and vaporous.

 

 

No, transfer is not "gun culture code" but the legal term in common usage.

 

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous." False statement. It is those things, and off-topic as well. If gungrabbers had actually listened at the time of the law's passage instead of trying to generate fear that a normal legal term was some sinister code, the law might have been written without the "problem" you admit exists. A minor, very easy-to-correct problem exists.You are going on and on about it, getting all pinheaded about it. How long will it last?

 

You have a commanding position from your cardboard soapbox. With big hubris, like the SAF's Gottlieb:

 

 

"Fix all the problems in-594 and come back. We can talk then." Alan Gottlieb (whose background check prevention countermeasure was defeated by 20 points in the vote count)

 

The Great WA "Transfer" Caper of 2014

"Tom, your subject, background checks, is sort of being snuck in here. (You oppose them for 40% of the U.S. gun market.)

We're going to look at how a retail sale BC failed in this case.

I would relish an honest discussion about BC's. But you are not discussing them here, you are avoiding that, while grinding on about the use of the word "transfer." It's just silly.

YOU brought up transfers, and can't let them rest. Other wording could be substituted, go for it with my blessing. It is not a dealbreaker.

It is not worth discussing, (unless you have the better wording I have heard about).

I can afford to concede to you here, one thousand percent. (Same for The Great FL Stat Warpage of''99), not because either matters, and not because you are right about either, but because they are straw men, wasting my time.

Hello? I-594 (our new background check law in WA, which was not gutted) is not about the use of the word transfer. But, your subject, background checks, has something lacking which contributed to these deaths.

This thread in about what we call the Marysville School shooting. (Five kids were invited to lunch in their school cafeteria are shot with a Beretta, by a tribal youth.)

The shooter, a popular figure in his junior in high school, owned a rifle...but swiped his father's Beretta to kill his cousins.

His father had five guns laying around his house, which held children...until he was arrested days ago...for having ANY guns.

He was on a permanant "no guns" list due to a 2002 violent DV altercation.

He had lied at Cabella's when buying the gun, and had lied again on a CCP form.

Since reporting DV violators is voluntary (at the behest of the gun lobby), the elder Fryberg's tribal authority did not report him to the system.

That got changed, but only after five kids had been shot.

They threw the shooter's father in jail a few days ago for having guns illegally, and let him out this morning.

The whole anemic system is reflected here, A to Z. Our "Shall Issue", with its "shall not be denied" wording, also played into this.

 

Browne (the older Fryberg's attorney) said Fryberg did not know he was barred from possessing firearms, and he said he was even issued a concealed-carry permit before the school shootings.

 

He also accused the government of punishing his client for the sins of his son. “He had nothing to do with what happened at that high school,” he said.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/judge-allows-release-of-father-of-marysville-school-shooter/

 

"Nothing to do with what happened"?

The father supplied the gun. He did not secure his guns.

He lived on the illegal fringes of the gun mentality, and robust reporting of the "at risk" would have prevented the sale.

 

Talk about that Tom. The gun lobby messed with reporting requirements all across the USA.

 

And please, for your own benefit (not mine) submit better transfer wording, or STFU about your straw man.

I'll forward your proposed wording to the I-594 re-work committee.

 

Thanks from WA gun guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

I understand that the wording of a ten-day or thirty day timing clause, borrowed from elsewhere, would solve this minor problem of the term "transfer".

 

Which minor problem is that? The one I just said it was.

 

Are you actually agreeing with me that it makes no sense to be able to loan a gun to your nephew but not give one to your adult son? That's heavy, man, you are truly profound today.

 

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word into the bill. ??? Another mis-quotation.

 

 

...

 

--Lots of distraction was generated over the use of the word transfer. I understand that transfer is gun culture code for a gun barter; these complaints seemed tiresome, weak, and vaporous.

 

 

No, transfer is not "gun culture code" but the legal term in common usage.

 

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous." False statement. It is those things, and off-topic as well. If gungrabbers had actually listened at the time of the law's passage instead of trying to generate fear that a normal legal term was some sinister code, the law might have been written without the "problem" you admit exists. A minor, very easy-to-correct problem exists.You are going on and on about it, getting all pinheaded about it. How long will it last?

...

And please, for your own benefit (not mine) submit better transfer wording, or STFU about your straw man.

I'll forward your proposed wording to the I-594 re-work committee.

 

Thanks from WA gun guys.

 

 

Yeah, right. We can see in the quote above that anything from my elk will be considered "tired, weak and vaporous" and a "straw man" even if it's actually a "minor" problem that a person can loan a gun to his nephew but can't give one to his adult son.

 

I don't know how "gun culture code" snuck into 594. Seems odd that Bloomberg fans would adopt gun culture code in the law they wrote. How did that happen anyway?

 

Why are you asking a reckless racist who enjoys causing mayhem to submit better language? Is that how gun culture code snuck into the bill in the ifrst place? I'd say if your elk created a "minor" problem, your elk should fix it or stfu. Or, preferably, fix it AND stfu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

I understand that the wording of a ten-day or thirty day timing clause, borrowed from elsewhere, would solve this minor problem of the term "transfer".

 

Which minor problem is that? The one I just said it was.

 

Are you actually agreeing with me that it makes no sense to be able to loan a gun to your nephew but not give one to your adult son? That's heavy, man, you are truly profound today.

 

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word into the bill. ??? Another mis-quotation.

 

 

...

 

--Lots of distraction was generated over the use of the word transfer. I understand that transfer is gun culture code for a gun barter; these complaints seemed tiresome, weak, and vaporous.

 

 

No, transfer is not "gun culture code" but the legal term in common usage.

 

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous." False statement. It is those things, and off-topic as well. If gungrabbers had actually listened at the time of the law's passage instead of trying to generate fear that a normal legal term was some sinister code, the law might have been written without the "problem" you admit exists. A minor, very easy-to-correct problem exists.You are going on and on about it, getting all pinheaded about it. How long will it last?

...

And please, for your own benefit (not mine) submit better transfer wording, or STFU about your straw man.

I'll forward your proposed wording to the I-594 re-work committee.

 

Thanks from WA gun guys.

 

 

Yeah, right. We can see in the quote above that anything from my elk will be considered "tired, weak and vaporous" and a "straw man" even if it's actually a "minor" problem that a person can loan a gun to his nephew but can't give one to his adult son. Crybaby talk, including more TR self-pity.

 

I don't know how "gun culture code" snuck into 594. Seems odd that Bloomberg fans would adopt gun culture code in the law they wrote. How did that happen anyway? Bloomberg is hip, I guess.

 

Why are you asking a reckless racist who enjoys causing mayhem to submit better language? Pity party, saying nothing though. Is that how gun culture code snuck into the bill in the ifrst place? I'd say if your elk created a "minor" problem, your elk should fix it or stfu. Or, preferably, fix it AND stfu.

 

 

I am satisfied with the bill. Why should I fix it?

The local police agencies have publicly stated they will arrest no one based on your (willful) interpretation of the term "transfer." Our problem was solved months ago, by using common sense, not alarmism.

 

The Boy Scout shooting instructors were not arrested either, BTW; that was a false alarm.

 

This whole empty thing is sour grapes from Tom Ray and Gottlieb. They are both crying like a baby...instead of recognizing the protection offered to public guns by background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want "throw 'em against the wall and frisk 'em" control freaks in power, no matter how "hip" they seem to you.

 

My "willful" interpretation is the only possible one. The fact that LE says they won't enforce the law as written indicates a problem.

 

BG checks do nothing to affect public guns, by which I assume you mean those that belong to government agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should write some new laws that re-introduce slavery. The fact that LE likely won't enforce them is good enough not to worry about, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites