Vote "NO" on Initiative 591, Because It Aims to Keep the Gun Show Loophole Wide Open


I've already voted no on 591 and yes in 594, but out of curiousity, what would happen if both passed, say, out of voter confusion?

The NRA would laugh. Like this: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
@1: It would be very WA if that happen.
The SECB member and the paper's publisher Keck gave 4-figures to the pro-594 forces. How many other interviews have you done with candidates/issues after you've donated heavily to their opposition ?
@3, yes, it would be like the 2007 tunnel advisory vote, with "No" winning over both the tunnel and viaduct rebuild options.

Which is probably why they did 1A and 1B how they did.
@1: It may be that a 591 win would nullify a win on 594.
Listen carefully children.

Asking criminals to obey the law nicely isn't going to work. It isn't. You can pass feel good laws (if you have the votes) imposing your paranoid delusions on the sane (non Seattle dwelling is a good working definition of sane) citizens of this state. And the only winners will be whoever collects the fees for the background checks.

I know. You think at any moment a surbananite driving an SUV with an NRA bumper sticker and hopelessly out f date clothes is going to shoot up the pecious little coffee shop you're sitting in. I know. Logic and common sense are as foreig to you as Farsi. I know, you haven't got any faintest notion of critical thoughr, guiding all your actions on the whim of the moment like the toddlers you are.

But your stupid initiative won't change a single thing, except to continue the erosion of basic civil liberties in this country. Try, for once in your pierced tattooed deviant freak show lives, to actually think about something before you do it.
Washington State has TWICE the rate of school shooting as the national average.


obviously you girls are doing something terribly wrong.

but go ahead, plunge faster down the path that isn't working........

Grandpa, ask the nurse nicely if he could please change your catheter now. Your obvious discomfort is making you cranky again, which isn't good for your heart.
If they both pass the courts will surely have to weigh in. I don't think it's possible for that to happen though. People's default vote on initiatives is usually "no" or abstaining which is a de facto "no". So it's more likely for both to fail.

As for @7... police. Check it out.
@7 spot on! Criminals will break laws anyway, that's what makes them criminals. So, rather than criminalize their actions, we should get rid of all laws, because what's the point of having any law if criminals are going to break them?

Without laws, there's no way for someone to become a criminal, and thus, we void their societal indiscretions by burying our heads in the sand. Oooh, then we won't need cops, or prisons, and we could save so much money. Those damn pesky taxes are always messing me up, instead of buying 10 guns a month, I've had to cut back to 8. Who can maintain an arsenal with only 8 guns a month?! God damn taxes are fuckin' up my shit I tell you.

No to law and order, both the civil concept and the never ending TV series! I want more guns, because criminals have guns! And in order for me to afford more guns than criminals, we should get rid of all laws so I don't have to pay taxes! But, since I won't know who is a criminal and who isn't because the concept of criminality should be voided, I'll need even MORE guns!

Guns guns guns guns guns!!!!!!

I can see why school, really anything involving reading comprehension, would be something you'd see as boring...

So how about this? Since rights mean nothing to you, give yours up but leave mine alone, okay child?

As for the gun collectors, those I know value their guns. They're locked in safes. They're transported in cases to ranges or hunting. Despite your paranoi, these guys are business owners, attorneys, craftsmen. They're dads and husbands. (Real husbands married to women. Not so called married to other guys.) Their guns are, most importantly, their business. Not yours or the other paranoid nuts here. Not the property or business of government. Theirs. (Liberals don't understand this word. It means someone worked for something and didn't require 4 government programs to help them do so, or the IRS stealing somebody elses money to help them.)
Asking criminals to obey the law nicely isn't going to work. It isn't.
That's nice, but the neat thing about universal background checks is that they apply to law abiding citizens forcing them to restrict who they sell to. If a criminal wants to sell the gun to another person without checking, then all the law can do is penalize him or her.

Oh wait, you had the criminal and honest citizen idea swapped in your head, didn't you? You never considered someone who could sell guns would be the criminal. A criminal is someone who violates the law, and once this is a law, the law abiding citizens who sell guns will obey it because they are "law abiders". The criminals won't, but we have police to deal with that.

I know it makes you sad that someone won't be able to answer an ad on Craigslist, meet some dude in a parking lot, give him a couple hundred bucks to buy a guy with no background checks, and then use that gun to blow away his wife under a protection order. But that is the price of progress--making people like you sad.
As for the gun collectors, those I know value their guns. They're locked in safes. They're transported in cases to ranges or hunting. Despite your paranoi, these guys are business owners, attorneys, craftsmen. They're dads and husbands. (Real husbands married to women. Not so called married to other guys.) Their guns are, most importantly, their business. Not yours or the other paranoid nuts here. Not the property or business of government. Theirs. (Liberals don't understand this word. It means someone worked for something and didn't require 4 government programs to help them do so, or the IRS stealing somebody elses money to help them.)
And it would have been impossible for them to have legally bought their guns, right? Or would it be too difficult for them to follow the regulations given that they are professionals who have followed regulations their entire lives.
(Real husbands married to women. Not so called married to other guys.)
You are an evil person. When this passes, I will enjoy the sadness it brings to you.

Yes. And criminals have never figured ways around the law before! They'll be completely baffled by your clever idea! Yep. No more gun violence in this mans state I tell ya!

You're an idiot. A moron. Elevator doesn't go to the top. Quite a few apples shy of a bushel.

A liberal.
You're an idiot. A moron. Elevator doesn't go to the top. Quite a few apples shy of a bushel.
I missed it. Can you say it once again, in CAPS. You won't be able to make me re-evaluate my life via a post on the Internet unless it is loud and with spittle.

See, the problem is I can't think how to break this down into concepts so simple even you would understand them.

Oh well. Good luck with your attempts to gut rights you personally don't value.

And don't bother being outraged when the precedent you and your half witted ilk are trying to set means those rights you do value come under attack.
@7, 12, 15, 17:

If I-594 passes it will land peaceful people in legal system and jail.

When peaceful people are hurt by gun violence it's sad. It truly is. But when peaceful people are kidnapped and caged it's also sad. I think we can do better than I-594.

To be clear, my life has been touched by gun violence. Probably more than anyone else in this thread. But an emotional reaction is no excuse for the passing of poor laws that will victimize just as many people as it may save. Institutional violence is just as bad, if not worse, than person-to-person violence.
Oh well. Good luck with your attempts to gut rights you personally don't value.
Says the person, who in the exact same post he is responding to, that he considers gay marriage to be fake.

Yep. I consider purple hair fake too. Pierced genitalia? Well I'm no doctor, but I'll bet it's not a rare genetic condition.

And a few perverts trying to destroy family and marriage to justify their perversion? Not fake. Evil.
@21 It's clear your goal is to be offensive. What do you get out of it? I can understand cheezing off the Slog on a couple posts, but this long term fixation can't be healthy.

Barbarians lose in the end always. As surely as movie villians or the nemesis in an older book, chaos and evil will lose eventually.

Right now it looks like your side- the side favoring dissolution and depravity and destruction- it looks to you like you're going to win. Your attacks on marriage appear to be winning. Your attacks on family appear to be winning. Your attacks on faith and the values Christian beliefs engender in a culture appear to be winning.

You hate work and responsibility and civic duty of the kind Kennedy exhorted us to- outward rather than selfish and taking- though you pay lip service to it while championing government policies at direct odds with them. Yoy hate success anyone else might have attained and work for tax policy to steal from those who did. You hate the very values on which our constitution was formed and on which our greatness as a nation is founded.

I'm just here to remind you that in the end the barbarians, the evil, lose. Always. Enjoy while you can the apparent victory of your various depravities. It won't last.
Note that the pro-gun arguments are always anti-594 and very seldom pro-591. Even the NRA has refused to endorse I-591. If the anti-594 arguments seem twisted, just wait until you ask a pro-gun advocate to make some pro-591 arguments. The two parts of I-591 are a) national standard for background checks, and b) no gun confiscation w/o due process. Argument "a" is hotly disliked by states' rights people. Argument "b" is recognized as simply being a shiny object to draw votes. On I-591 there's no "there" there, except as a stalking horse to defeat I-594.
Bad thing about I-591 is that it ties WA gun laws to the federal laws (so much for states' rights…) If Republicans control the congress and the White House and federal gun laws are loosened or repealed, the same would happen here in WA.

Don't let Washington DC trump WA state. Vote NO on 591.
@23 actually a reading of history shows progress and change wins. Every fucking time. You see in total fear of the world around and it scares you.

After reading this rant all I can do is feel sorry for you. You're like a confederate solider clinging to a way of life that no longer fits in this rapidy changing world. He lost that war and a century later his 'noble and righteous' fight is viewed by the modern world as vile and evil.

Simply put, you are the evil and hate that you rage against.

I hope you finally man up and leave when tighter gun control passes. You certainly couldn't stay true to your word when marriage equality passed.
@23 "You hate work and responsibility and civic duty."

This is funny.

You do realize that mandatory background checks for all gun sales is entirely about responsibility and civic duty, right? Being responsible and a good citizen by ensuring that you do not inadvertently sell a firearm to someone who is prohibited from possessing one. Of course that involves a bit more work.

You do support people working to be responsible and perform their civic duty, don't you?

No? You'd rather they be lazy, irresponsible poor citizens, profiting from the sale of guns to criminals? Really?

A century later?

That's a long lived soldier!

But to content-

Your first paragraph uses terms you don't define except by insinuation. Progress and change to correct error are fine, necessary even for a thriving culture. Of course, what you and the other barbarous types are about is clothing your war on decent and useful cultural systems in words like 'progress.' So I know how to assess that.

Nice job in the 2nd though, conflating a real evil in need of social change, racism, with the deviant lifestlye choices of perverts! You almost sound plausible. Well, to someone with no moral compass at all.

Hate? Evil? To someone like you who hate such things espousing strong families, work ethic and responsibilities, moral values that wouldn't look like they came from a sewer- I guess that would seem hateful. Though steeped in your own evil I doubt you have any capacity to recognize that term. Nah. To me you and your vile ilk are like a cockroach in a salad. Worthy of restrained loathing but not strong emotion.

Oh, and we had full marriage equality before you barbarians won that skirmish. Any willing man could marry any willing woman. A gay man or lesbian could as well marry an opposite sex spouse.

What we have now thanks to trash like you is redefined marriage out of any rational sense.
@30 Yawn. Wrong topic. Care to answer my question @27? Don't you think good citizens have the responsibility to ensure their weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals? Why do you hate responsibility and civic duty?

Aren't you Canadian? Why would this be any of your business?

But no. I don't think pointless laws that won't do anything but increase government involvement in law abiding citizens lives is my civic duty. Or that it demonstrates responsibility. Or really that it shows its proponents to be anything but paranoid delusionals without any sense.
@Seattleblues, just fucking stop. You're only fooling yourself and embarrassing the hell out of good Christians.

Here's the deal, you're nothing but a piece of roadkill in the judgement of history. You're lucky this is anonymous, otherwise your rants would leave your friends, family and community deeply shamed and worried how this virtuously seeming man could waste some much energy and effort being antagonistic to strangers.

Here's a nice life tip from an adult. Whatever you post online you should be willing to say to someone's face. Otherwise you're nothng but the screaming id of a child.
@32: It's a free Internet. I can comment on whatever I like. Hey, I didn't bitch about you commenting on a Canadian story, did I?

But thanks for clearing that up. You do not believe that "law-abiding" citizens have a responsibility to ensure that if they sell a firearm, the purchaser is not prohibited by law from owning the gun.

In your mind, being a good citizen is entirely compatible with selling guns to murderers. Good to know.
Seattleblues - always so routinely routed at Slog that his persistence illustrates a sexual satisfaction he derives from it.
@35, lol.
@35, that's the best explanation I've seen so far.
@Seattleblues - I stopped reading after comment 400 or something, but if you think 594 violates your rights, then I guess you want to repeal the existing background check laws, too? No one's getting rid of rights - they're allowing people to exercise their rights in a uniform fashion regardless of where the gun is bought.

Yes, some criminals will still find a way around the law, but just because they *can* doesn't mean we have to give up on making it more difficult for them to do it. 594 does exactly that - by closing a loophole.

I thought the NRA was all for responsible gun ownership and reasonable laws? Well, this is what that looks like.

Of course, we all know the NRA (and non-affiliated gun nuts - sorry, 2nd amendment absolutists) is actually for fear and unchecked gun manufacturer profits, not rights or the founding fathers. I can't believe gun control - something more than half of americans want - is still up for public debate. SMH
@35 - Hah! That's perfect.
@23: Basically this:
"You're a looney."
The same thing that happened to the anti-miscegenation people is happening to the anti-gay people. Everyday folks are seeing gay relatives and neighbors get married without society ending, so the old xenophobia is no longer there. You can predict your side's imminent victory based on your insistence that you're the good guys, but I have four words for you:
So how confident are we seattleblues isn't a poe? I go back and forth, but I get that vibe from him sometimes. Rightwingers make it so hard these days.
closing this loophole is one of about twenty steps we have to take. we have to reduce the total guns floating around to maybe a situation where guns are owned by only 4% of the population. like australia, canada, england, etc. those places where it's safer? this family frybergs hunted, they'd qualify. but the little pistol he easily accessed and brought to school was there because of our liberal guns laws that let 200 million guns wash over us. every male teenager is what we could call a mental case, they don't have the brain to control themselves. every potential drug dealer, sure, they will break the law and get a gun, we make the cost or price of that so ridiculously low, they all have guns. the notion there is a good guy bad guy line drawn in the air or on the ground somewhere is phoney. there is no border. it's one soup full of guns, easily accessible to all bad guys BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE. the gun nuts are stupid, lying morons to not see this. yes, I lost some of you but you're beyond rational to not see that the widespread availability of guns here and NOT IN ENGLAND CANADA FRANCE GERMANY JAPAN AUSTRALIA etcetcetc is WHY it's so much more violent here than there. They have drugs in europe, they have teenagers, they have mental cases. They don't have ez widespread availability of guns. THIS is why in paris you can walk around at midnight. in new york, chicago, only in certain neighborhoods. to deny the connection between guns and violence is the most blatantly lying falsehood since the days of slavery when the slave owning class and slave enabling sectors said the enslaved persons liked it and loved their masters. You, NRA folks, are like that. Denying the obvious. You go to tokyo and feel okay staggering back to the hotel drunk without fear; you go to chicago and take a cab 9 blocks because of the fear. you don't go in the wrong neighborhood in chicago. you love your myth that you protect us, but you never do. your kids will be safer in japan or australia and you fucking know it's true but you lie, lie lie to us denying the causal fact that gun control over there, lower numbers of guns, leads to and causes more safety and less gun violence. fucking liars.
How exactly does checking to see if you're a criminal before letting you buy a gun erode your basic civil liberties or take away your rights? Some people have had their right to own a gun taken away either due to felony conviction or other court order. This is based on laws already in place that nobody seems to be questioning. A background check simply checks to see if you've had those rights revoked already.

So, if you're not a criminal and still have the right to own a gun then background checks do nothing to infringe on your rights since, after a background check, you can still buy a gun.

If you are a criminal and due to a history of violence (as one example) your right to carry a gun has been revoked then background checks do nothing to infringe on your rights because current law has already revoked your right to own a gun. The background check just gives us some hope of enforcing the laws already on the books. Without a background check there's no way to enforce those laws. Aren't you gun lovers the ones who are always telling us we need to enforce the laws on the books?
@43: No, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is carte blanche to do anything you want. Think the EPA shouldn't be allowed to regulate how much lead is dumped in waterways? Gun rights! Want to eliminate any safety/regulatory oversight of an entire manufacturing industry? Gun rights! Ban on selling vintage ivory getting you down? Gun rights! Feeling unwelcome because a private business wants customers to not bring guns into their establishment? Gun rights! Afraid of research on gun violence proving that guns don't make you safer? Gun rights!

And yes, the NRA has lobbied against the EPA's ability to regulate lead being dumped into the environment. And yes, local gun rights groups have sought to exempt in-state gun manufacturing and sales from any sort of regulatory oversight. (Such bills have often been passed...and then struck down by courts. Suck it!) And yes, the NRA opposes bans on ivory sales because people with ivory-handled guns might be affected. And yes, gun rights supporters have flipped their shit at Starbucks exercising its right to set policies for what you can or can't bring into its stores. And yes, the CDC has been at the NRA's behest banned from studying gun violence since 1996.
Don't you see? If you claim that your right to bear arms is under attack, you can justify AAANYTHING!
Strange how you'd support 594, which is entirely funded by rich people. And here I'd always thought that you were a paper that cared about human rights. The right to defend yourself through any method you see fit is as much a human right as the right to birth control and abortion.
The article is misleading

The most notable supporters of I-591 is WACOPS

in other words, police overwhelmingly support 591 and oppose 594

Other similarly minded folks are the Second Amendment Sisters and Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Association

The mythical all Powerful gun lobby and all those evil firearms dealers aside, street cops and detectives support 591 and oppose 594

I am pretty confident they are not being paid off by the all powerful Oz, I mean gun lobby

The "gun show loophole" is Bullshit fearmongering. Every gun show I have been up here requires you to be a member of the governing gun/collector's club. To do that you need to pass a background check. They self police themsleves very well. If anyone is caught making a deal elsewhere on the premises with a non-member they have their abiltity to sell at the gunshow removed for quite a long time.

This theory that criminals and school shooters get their guns at gun shows via this loophole is stupid. A law like 594 just clogs the background check system that already takes a month or more to come back. Private and commercial gun sales will tank. Its not fair to vote no on something protecting existing gun owners rights and vote yes on something that slows the system to a crawl and hurts local businesses.