That is so cold of whoever did this. So cold.

I saw that in Ballard about a week ago. There's another one, obviously from the same astroturfing effort that says something like "Some people don't like gays, some people don't like guns" and has a picture of (I suppose) two lesbians and equates gay rights with gun rights in a way that's supposed to make you think that gosh, people just want to love the guns they're with! Or something.

There is a vicious little rumor being put forward by the "No" crowd that this initiative will "hurt low income families" because "they can't afford the background check, and what if they needed the weapon for protection" (Totally disregarding of course the cost of purchasing, learning to use, and properly maintaining said firearm)....

There's a proletariat in Ballard?

@5
LOL! Good point!

Dan savage is such a fucking piece of shit asshole it isn't even funny. But let me ask you this: why is it "billionaires" donating to the NRA is bad (actually, the NRA isn't that rich as far as lobbying groups go) but Bill Gates, the richest man on Earth, donating money to I-594 is okay?
http://q13fox.com/2014/08/25/bill-melind…

Listen, you piece of liberal shit, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If it's wrong for an imagined billionaire to donate to the NRA than it should also be wrong for billionaire Bill Gates to donate to I-594

NRA money bad, 5 times more from Bloomberg good?

That was the theme of the (unattributed) anti-594 robocall I got yesterday: "What are the billionaire elites, with their armed guards, afraid of? That the 99% will revolt?"

#gunfuckers

@7... good job convincing me that tea party types aren't a bunch of limp-dicked-frustrated-with-their-own-impotence-anger-management-issues-up-the-ass style nutjobs.

Really, keep up the good work.

@12: Because theoretical violence is only bad if it's from the state! DUH

My favorite part of his cognitive dissonance is where he says that we absolutely should support those who are more needy around us, but proclaims "collectivism sucks"

One thing I-594 which doesn't get a lot of press is that it exempts person-to-person gun sales from sales tax. That should help pay for the background check.

Is the gunhumper point of view that the 2nd allows any citizen to own a gun or twelve? Regardless of felonious past? SCOTUS already called that bullshit (more than once for fuck sake). Gun retailers have to do it, so should any other seller.

Just remember that the NRA was for a lot of gun control measures until they realized that riling up the members was an effective way to get conservatives to the voting booths.

Where are people getting the idea that Dan Savage is complaining about NRA or rich guys or whatever giving money?

I guess nobody wants to gripe about what he's actually saying (and which is self-evidently true) - that this pretense of concern for the proletariat is obvious bullshit.

these flyers are like mars hill -- using the form of one idea to support the antithesis of that idea. the weakness in voting is getting people out to vote, and then getting them to remember which initiative is what. this is the worst kind of manipulation in that it is trying to take advantage of the latter problem. also kinda like those "we should put $15 an hour on the ballot" folks.

@11 &12
Still not answering the question: why is it that some imaginary billionaire donating to the NRA is wrong, but a REAL LIFE BILLIONAIRE, Bill Gates, donating to I-594 is okay?

Getting money out of politics is getting money out of politics, simple as that. You can't ignore one rich guy because you like his views while attacking another rich guy whose views you don't like.

Oh, and here's a Second Amendment advocate...is he a "tea party nut job" too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3isgUZ…

@18
Gee, maybe because Dan Savage said this: "This bullshit astroturf campaign was brought to you by the NRA*, which works for gun manufacturers, the millionaires who run them, and the billionaires who own them."

But he ignored Billionaire Bill Gates who donates a ton of money to support I-594.
http://q13fox.com/2014/08/25/bill-melind…

I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from we call that hypocrisy

@12
I'm against I-594 because it stops people with criminal conviction from buying guns...INCLUDING non-violent drug offenses, prostitution, etc.

If someone was caught with four tabs of acid five years ago and wants to buy a gun to protect themselves from their stalker, they would not be allowed to if I-594 passes. If it was restricted to violent offenders who were recently convicted, fine, but this is too much. If this passes, a disproportionate number of people of color will be banned from ever owning a tool for self defense, because a disproportionate number of people of color have been caught up in the racist war on drugs. So I'm voting no.

I'll play you're game @21.
NRA wins, gun manufacturers win, profit. Mass shootings, DV deaths, suicides.....
Bill Gates wins...... profit? You can only sell guns to those who aren't prohibited from buying. Where's Gates get his money back? Where is the profit past human life?
Dick.

@22 You should have led with this argument and skipped the first post where you came across like a raving lunatic. Also, pointing out people's hypocrisy is more effective if you do it without getting melodramatic.

@24 Dan is claiming that the NRA is a mouthpiece for corporate interests. I know this because I read his post: "... the NRA*, which works for gun manufacturers, the millionaires who run them, and the billionaires who own them." You can argue that he's wrong, but there is no "false equivalence." Every time someone says something you disagree with it doesn't have to be a straw man argument, or an ad hominem attack, etc. Sometimes you can just disagree with someone's opinion.

@20 No but Malcolm X would tell you that you are an idiot barking like dog on behalf of an ideology that oppresses you.



I get it CS you honestly believe that if everyone else believed and behaved as you would like to believe you do, the world would be a Disney movie. But you don't. And we don't. Your "Leftist Libertarian" fantasy is well a fantasy.



And besides who wants to live in a Disney movie?

@22: I-594 does not stop anyone who is currently eligible to buy a gun from buying a gun. I think what you're saying is that people who are not currently eligible to buy a gun can now easily evade those restrictions, and that you're cool with that because they shouldn't be ineligible. But that just proves how toothless the background check laws are now, for both nonviolent offenders and violent felons. If you have a beef with who can and cannot buy a gun, gutting all background check laws is a dangerous and stupid means of achieving your goal.

@22, @25 is exactly right.

It doesn't matter if you have reasonable arguments if you don't have the discipline and consideration to present those arguments in a reasonable way. I sometimes agree with your arguments, but it makes sense to ignore everything you wrote after your first post, which reads like it was written by an eighth grader.

There are left groups opposed to gun control measures, including the International Socialist Organization. They are crazy and wrong, and they have no corporate money and no power, but they are not the NRA.

Mr Savage went "leave Brittney alone" whiny about guns during his appearance on Week in Review.

http://kuow.org/post/listen-week-review-…

@ 30, I believe c_s IS in the 8th grade.

@33 & 30 why are you two insulting 8th graders?

There is no logical argument to made opposing I-594. None. It's just common sense regulation.

@28

I will ask this again: are people with drug convictions ten years ago "dangerous criminals" who should be denied the constitutional right to bear arms?



If I-594 was restricted to violent criminals who committed their crimes less than ten years ago, I would be okay with it. But saying people convicted of victimless crimes should NEVER be able to own so much as a hunting rifle is absurd.



And yes, our background checks are currently toothless. They should stay that way.

@22



I support legislation (or Constitutional amendment, since our SCOTUS embraces the ridiculous idea that money equals speech) limiting how much an individual can give to initiative campaigns. But until that day comes, we're going to play by the same rules as everyone else.



Nice try changing the issue though. Everyone here sees your tactic for the BS it is. Background checks are a no-brainer that everyone should support.

@36: you'd find some niggling objection to any proposed expansion of firearm regulation, so your specific objection to this one is moot. a convicted felon is a convicted felon - and outside the scope of 594. if you want to restore their gun rights, start a petition to do so, and watch it go down in flames.

How is this astroturfing? Does the poster claim to be from a group it is not part of, and I just can not see it on the poster? Looks like an effective (if not bullshit) argument that uses imagery everyone locally is familiar with to make its point.

I am usually all on board with The Stranger's voting endorsements, but this is one they can keep. As a liberal, socialist-voting gay suburbanite whose right to bear arms will not be fucked with, I will be re-upping my NRA membership and voting straight Republican if 594 passes. Yeah, they're crazy, and I don't like them either. Stop making me get in bed with them, they smell weird and never call.







(For the record I'm not against background checks -- but in addition to being too broadly written, 594 is an unfunded mandate. If you want a background check law to make a difference, you also need to open NICS to the public, not just FFL holders.)

@22, So, your issue is that some people are banned from having guns inappropriately is that right? You agree that people with a violent history, for example, should indeed have their right to own a gun revoked while others with, for example, a drug conviction, should still be allowed to own a gun. Is this an accurate assessment of your opinions on the matter? If so, I can't say I disagree with you.

If that is indeed your opinion on the matter then why are you against background checks? How on earth do you expect to be able to do anything to stop violent criminals who have had their gun rights revoked from buying guns than by checking the background of everyone who buys a gun? Do you have an alternative method of enforcing that law that you agree with?

If you think that someone with a drug conviction should be allowed to carry a gun then why not propose your own referendum? Fight to return gun rights to those people instead of fighting to make it impossible to enforce a gun restriction you seem to agree with. I don't know what the process for that is in WA but I don't see why that couldn't be changed. I think you'd likely find a lot of support for that in a state that recently legalized weed.

#41,





Congratulations on threatening to do what every republican since Nixon has been trying to get you to do--vote based on your fears instead of what's in your best interests.





Unless you are a convicted felon, no one is coming for your guns. So your wingnut paranoia has no basis in reality. If you love your gun more than you love LGBT equality, women, minorities, the poor, education and the environment, then you were never really a liberal to begin with, but just another "I got mine so fuck everyone else" asshole. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

@41: "i'm liberal, but i'll vote GOP out of spite over my misunderstanding of a simple initiative closing a loophole in an existing law".

plus the "unfunded mandate" talking point. sweet jesus.

you're a. not liberal or b. ridiculous and talking out your ass.

To the I-594 supporters: You've all read all, or at least some of the text of I-594, right? You know this law is so poorly written that it will prevent relatives from just giving or willing, firearms to recipients (like a grandparent to a grandchild, etc), right? What happens when a mother trying to escape from an abusive relationship can't be loaned a firearm by her mother or father for the protection for her and her children, lest it be used and revealed that it was loaned, thus opening the loaning parent to prosecution? You're prepared to live with this and see your friends and neighbors saddled with this burden, for the specious reason this will somehow keep you safer?

I can live with the systems in place now for background checks, even though I was wrongly denied for 3 months by the NICS system.

Sandy Hook was perpetrated with firearms that were legally purchased and subsequently stolen. The Navy Yard shooter had a secret clearance, which involves an extensive background check which is much more involved than the one one would undergo through NICS.

When you go to the polls, try to remember that rights are like teeth: If you ignore them they'll go away, and once they're gone, they're gone.

@41- Pure astoturf.

@46- More astroturf. I love that the turfer doesn't even know we vote by mail here.

I'm in CA, and we have universal background checks. Given that second hand guns can be had for less than a hundred dollars, those checks double or triple the cost of cheap guns. That's 25 dros, 40-100 ffl, and 2 round trips to wherever the seller is.

Which is more than enough to cut back on the number of armed poor people.

If this was really just about keeping guns out off the hands of criminals a 2 percent fee would generate the same income, without being so heavily regressive.

...And then there is the fact that it's near impossible to transport a gun without a car.

@48: You are incorrect; I will explain. I've live in the Puget Sound area, starting with being stationed on the Kitsap peninsula, since '87, and I first moved to WA in '84 when I was still a civilian and in high school. Voting by mail is a relatively new concept for me personally, and I apologize if the phrase "go to the polls" left you with the wrong impression or confusion.

I-594 will do noting to protect you, but it will create the potential to have many more prosecutions for misinterpretation by law enforcement and the judicial system. It will probably cause some to divest themselves of firearms altogether, and if this is a goal for which you hope, you may realize it in some small way.

Please pardon the poor grammar. "I've live" should be "I've lived".

@36: So, rather than change the law to let people with old nonviolent drug offenses legally own guns, we should just refrain from passing any laws that make it easier for the state to enforce the broken law on anybody. That's like saying that instead of giving DREAMers with clean records a path to citizenship, we should just stop deporting people entirely. It's like saying that rather than decriminalize marijuana possession, we should just stop arresting people entirely. It's like saying that rather than carving out exemptions for small businesses, we should just do away with regulation of industry entirely. (Do you understand the comparisons I drew?) Your argument against I-594 is bad, and you should feel bad!
Also, do you really think we should have "toothless" background checks? You just declared yourself to be in favor of something that costs taxpayer money but doesn't actually have any effect. Either get rid of background checks entirely (a gawdawful idea that would lead to violent felons being able to legally buy a gun with no difficulty) or make them actually serve their purpose of preventing legitimate vendors from accidentally selling to felons (an idea I wholly support).

@50- Liar.

@42: I suspect c_s thinks the solution is for violent felons to voluntarily not buy firearms. After all, the only other solution would be for the state to force people to follow rules!

@53: If you are of the opinion I lied, please make your case. I am interested in your frank point-by-point dissection of my statements. I await your reply. If you cannot, I would ask that you, please, retract your comment. Thank you.

@55- Do you have any evidence you're telling the truth about your background you'd care to share?

You have zero posting history until now, you don't seem to know how voting works in this state, and you show up repeating some talking points. I have no reason to believe you, stranger. The fact you claim to have a long history in this state doesn't mean a whole lot. Lying is extremely popular among the supporters of 591, as evidenced by your false claims regarding willing or loaning a firearm. (hint, paperwork isn't "preventing.")

@56: Normally the burden of proof lies with the accuser, but I'll humor your ad hominem accusation. Please read on.
I was stationed @NSB Bangor on Kitsap Peninsula when the highway between the base and Poulsbo was a two-lane highway.
I was stationed @NSB Bangor on Kitsap Peninsula when the Seattle-Winslow ferry run was what you tried to not be late for. Now it's the Seattle-Bainbridge Island run.
I was here when 'The Oz', an underage dance club, was down by the Space Needle right off Denny.
I spoke to John Keister and Tracy Conway while waiting in line at the Cinerama for "ID4: Independence Day" in 1996.
I saw 'Bright Young Things' at the Neptune in 2004.
I've been a resident of our great state of Washington for over 30 years. You can assure yourself of this by asking your local neighbors assuming you haven't lived in the area long enough to know that my offers of proof to establish my bona fides are genuine.
Many authoritarians have been conflating background checks, spree killings, and body counts by age (19 YO "children ") for over a generation in my experience; 594 is just more grist for this particular mill. I'm willing to bet there have been 591 supporters that have engaged in similar tactics, but of this I have no proof.
Don't presume to disingenuously 'hint'; it's unbecoming.
"Paperwork" is preventing when there is an onerous tax and the possibility of a 'backdoor' firearms database attached to this "paperwork".
The Aurora shooter and the Santa Barbara killer both had background checks for their firearms purchases. The Navy Yard shooter has a Secret clearance, which is much more extensive than a normal background check to purchase a firearm.
I, and pretty much anyone, can now build firearms with some rudimentary knowledge of sheet metal working and simple tools. You can fold, drill and spot-harden the receiver for an AK pattern rifle. You can order a collection of non-firearm AK-pattern rifle parts, which is everything but the receiver, and this can be shipped to your door with no background check.
Once you assemble your parts into a working weapon, well, you have a firearm that has gone through no background check, and it will legally go through NO background check, even if 594 is passed. The next spree killer can build a firearm and the first any other human being may have actually seen this completely assembled firearm is when the perpetrator decides "Offense X has been committed against me and now is the time to make the offender/s pay" and commences to fire.
So, please, tell me and the folks at home how 594 will make us safe?
Thank you for your patience. I hope you find this comment illuminating.

fuck springfield, fuck seattle