Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm #814730
wakefloodParticipantThanks for the thoughtful response, Ellisd. Quick question. If responsible gun owners like yourself who are NRA members have a preferred method of Universal Background Checks, why don’t they promote it?
Why isn’t the NRA and the Congressional members who are in it, standing on the floor of the Senate promoting exactly what you think will work?
Playing devil’s advocate is easy.
October 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm #814731
dingdongbuttholeMemberI am a veteran of this country, I am a participating individual in my community, I help others, I pay my taxes and I do whatever I can to keep my country clean.
I am also a pro 2nd amendment person, Initiative 594 will affect me badly. Do you know why ? well let me explain it to you.
Let’s say 594 is part of the law..hypothetically..
I will be going hunting this weekend with my buddies, and yes many many many people in Washington hunt.
My buddies gun doesn’t have a scope, so he asks me to lend him my gun while we are in the country so he can take a long distance shot.
I am going to have to tell him no, we will have to leave the camp site, go to a gun dealer or a location where they do firearm transfer, fill up the background check form, pay the taxes and fees, wait 10 days and then come back so I can lend him my gun for him to shoot a deer…
it gets even worse,
once he is done using my gun to take down a deer, he is gonna give me the gun back right? well get what, we have to the same process all over again.
we are going to have to go to a gun store or a licensed place , fill up the background check form, pay taxes, fees and any other fees the gun dealer is going to put on top and then wait 10 days to get my gun back.
now you individuals on here that think you understand logic and common sense, HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THAT MAKE SENSE??????
594 is not the answer to the “safer america” that you all seem to be talking about.
594 is written very poorly, I am not saying that a universal background check is a bad thing, I am saying that 594 is a bad thing.
I am voting NO on 594 because all its going to do is create unnecessary steps for me, for my fellow hunters, for the police departments, for the state and it will COST MONEY.
if you don’t own a firearm this will not affect you but I do and so do many people in this state.
Just because you think an unnecessary policy is going to make it safer for you, you are wrong.
If there are criminals out there that want to get a gun, well guess what? they are going to buy the gun online and not ever report it to a licensed gun leader like a law abiding citizen would do..
594 is nothing but a piece of paper, there are ZERO plans to endorse.
why would you need 18 pages of law for a simple ” background check” policy???
IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON VOTING YES ON 594, I SUGGEST YOU READ THE WHOLE 18 PAGES OF IT BEFORE DOING SO. BECAUSE IT MAKES ZERO SENSE.
don’t be a sheep people, don’t fall for these ads about 594 being safer. its not. all it does is create unnecessary fees and bogus paperwork.
I’m not saying NRA is good, I don’t even like NRA because they’re just another money driven organization.
All i’m saying is that 594 is this phantom idea that the rich like Michael bloomberg, bill gates, steve balmer and paul allen endorse simply because they can, not because they care…
be smart..
Vote no on 594
Vote yes on 591
October 16, 2014 at 4:48 pm #814732
JoBParticipantEllisd
i too read 594 carefully after having a discussion with a friend who is against it. He brought up many of the same points you did…
however.. when i looked into the rules i found that the statutes weren’t as clear as my friend thought.
for instance.. the idea that a gun safety class would be impossible unless students purchased their own guns…
if you were running the gun safety class you would be there to monitor the use of your firearm therefore it would in fact be legal to loan the guns under your supervision under 594.
what wouldn’t be legal is for you to borrow guns from several friends to use at your class…
or for a family friend to loan a kid a gun to use in the class.
which is kind of a moot point because in my experience, most kids taking gun safety and hunter safety classes do so because they have a gun and want to be allowed to use it… or because there are already guns in the home.
and.. if mom or dad or even the family friend is present to supervise the use of their gun.. lending it would be legal under 594
as to that small percentage of crime…
gun violence issues don’t look so minor if you are the victim of continued domestic violence and your spouse pretty much unlimited access to firearms though second party sales and accommodating friends even after you have secured restraining orders.
look up the stats.. this is not a small matter.
if you are for universal background checks and possibly even for registration.. we have to start somewhere.
it is actually easier to fix the possible “flaws” in this legislation than it would be to write and pass a series of comprehensive laws that would focus on mental health and reporting to nics…
and all you have to do to verify that is spend an evening in the area around pike place or pioneer square…
if it is true.. i am sorry you and your friends would have to pay more to have your firearms serviced…
but i don’t see that as a valid reason to subvert public safety
October 16, 2014 at 4:49 pm #814733
wakefloodParticipantThe fact of the matter is, is that a UBC law was just about to get voted in a year ago in Congress.
It was a done deal. Until the NRA put the full court press on a few guys and it fell off the table completely.
Frankly, I’m tired of hearing responsible gun owners making excuses for the NRA. Sure, you think they’re wrong but what do you do to change them? It amounts to a shrugging of shoulders, subterfuge and BS.
You’re either part of the solution…or proudly part of the problem.
October 16, 2014 at 4:53 pm #814734
pug loverMemberWakeflood – the preferred method already exists; it is verification of a concealed pistol license before any transaction, which is only obtained through a background check by local law enforcement agency and periodically renewed. Commonly referred to as a ‘good guy card’
October 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm #814735
dingdongbuttholeMemberSo you are saying just because you don’t like NRA, we should do something about it?
I’m not even a member of the NRA nor do I care about their ways.
HOWEVER,
I do care about my right as an american. and one is to bear arms and hunt if i wanted to or protect my self against domestic or foreign enemies.
YOU are saying since you didn’t get your way, I should be punished and be forced into something that doesn’t make sense.
Typical democratic softy, I bet none of you on here ever served your country…. Didn’t think so.
October 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm #814736
pug loverMemberWakeflood- if you only see people as part of the solution or ‘proudly’ part of the problem, perhaps the actual problem is your perception of things? Maybe you could be open to changing your perspective.
October 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm #814737
wakefloodParticipantSure. Gimme a reason for doing that, pug. Tell me where I should assume goodwill? If every time we get an opportunity to do something that has significant and a plurality of support on gun-related issues, we have folks who find a way to make it go away. If you always say no, what am I to take from that?
October 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm #814738
wakefloodParticipantOK, dingdong, what did you do to voice your dissatisfaction with NRA’s position on the UBC? Do you pay dues? If yes, and you haven’t voiced your opposition to that position, you’re supporting it whether you think you have or not.
I’ll reserve my opinions on interpretations of the 2nd Amendment for another opportunity.
I’d ask what serving in the military has to do with this topic but I suspect that’s irrelevant to you. I registered for the draft the first month it was required in 1979/80 but we weren’t involved with any wars at that time so I apologize for not enlisting. And I’ll ask you if you’ve asked Dick Cheney how many deferments he got before joining the NRA but that’s beside the point as well… ;-)
October 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm #814739
dingdongbuttholeMemberWakeflood,
i have never paid NRA, as matter of fact, i’ve never paid any political focused group. You know why? because every single political group has hidden agendas that I stay away from.
I ask about military because I promise you, if you did serve and do your duty and got deployed, you would understand how important it is.
right now, no matter what I say, you won’t understand it.
To me it sounds like you dislike NRA and based on that you are going to vote for 594.
you have no idea what 594 is actually about, you just dislike NRA so you’re going to hate on them and whatever they support…
October 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm #814740
wakefloodParticipantI understand plenty, dingdong. PLENTY.
October 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm #814741
dingdongbuttholeMemberLet’s try it in a way you understand and can sympathize.
tell me something that you are passionate about, something that you truly love
October 16, 2014 at 5:26 pm #814742
wakefloodParticipantSorry, man. Don’t know where you want to go with this but it’s likely another thread. I’ve started many discussions here about things I’m passionate about. Go to my profile and pick one. Respond there if you see fit.
October 16, 2014 at 5:28 pm #814743
pug loverMemberHere’s a scenario, when I shipped off for basic training, I gave my shotgun to my uncle, who I’ve known all my life and has a moderate collection of firearms, for storage in his gun safe. Under 594 this would have required a background check for an undetermined amount since there is no fee stipulation in the initiative. Ok.
So now I am stationed back in WA, to get my own shotgun back from my uncle, who has known me my whole life, would require another background check. Only problem is that while stationed in CA, there was a domestic abuser with the same name as me and somehow that persons record was linked to mine, which would result in a background check denial. Took about 9 months to clear that up. Maybe under 594 people would be more inclined to just leave the shotgun in their closet, where it would be more susceptible to theft (which doesn’t require a background check).
594 only impacts law abiding citizens, makes it too easy to become an accidental criminal, but does nothing to prevent REAL criminals from obtaining firearms through illegal means, which they already do. It targets the wrong people!
Stop blaming your fears on the NRA. If you want I will give you a firearms familiarity lesson, I am a certified instructor and safety officer
October 16, 2014 at 5:32 pm #814744
wakefloodParticipantSo, pug, would you support a national Universal Background Check law? If yes, why and have you promoted it with NRA and your fellow gun enthusiasts? If no, why not?
October 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm #814745
EllisdMember@ Job
I have not seen that, the closest I see is “at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located”.
also the definition of transfer in i594 is “(25) “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to
another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment
including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” It does not state anywhere about supervision or length of loan. If you could please point me to where it states that, I would be greatly appreciative.
“gun violence issues don’t look so minor if you are the victim of continued domestic violence and your spouse pretty much unlimited access to firearms though second party sales and accommodating friends even after you have secured restraining orders.”
In response to this, I must state that 1 I was a victim of “gun violence” 2 that i594 will still not solve the problem. If they want to obtain a firearm for illegal purposes they can still easily obtain a firearm by illegal methods. Straw purchases, “black market” and stealing. The fact is that this initiative would NOT solve much if any crime. If you can show me reliable data that proves that it will then I would be more than happy to reconsider. I do not expect any initiative to be perfect, but this one is seriously flawed. It would be wonderful if both sides could come together and draft an initiative that would institute UBCs in a logical reasonable way, but this is defiantly not it.
Just like any other group not all members have completely identical views. A great example of this is political parties. I hope that makes sense, lesser of 2 evils.
You can temp transfer/loan your firearms while hunting if you are with them. This only goes for hunting though, not target, safety etc. What you cannot do is lend a shotgun to a buddy that has a CCW and owns plenty of rifles for him to take that out and try out duck hunting or trap shooting to see if he likes that. Or to try out your nice $2500 o/u to see if he wants to spend that amount of money on it or look for something different.
October 16, 2014 at 5:48 pm #814746
dingdongbuttholeMemberWakeflood, i think you keep circling back to NRA because you just don’t like them personally.
This is the problem with discussions, no matter how you try to get your point across, it just doesn’t happened if the other party is closed minded and only thinks 1 way
perfect example is ^
October 16, 2014 at 5:58 pm #814747
wakefloodParticipantEllisd, you just stated the problem in a nutshell.
NOTHING is IT.
What’s IT look like? Was the national bill that didn’t get to a vote, IT? Apparently not because even though it was just about to become law, IT got tabled.
I’m tired of “bring me a rock”. It’s futile. It’s self-perpetuating and it’s going to require the NON-supporters to put something real and significant on the table for folks like me to poke holes in. But that’s apparently not going to happen. They’d rather spend money and throw up stuff like 591.
Waiting for someone to prove me wrong. I’ll be over here.
October 16, 2014 at 6:02 pm #814748
EllisdMemberLets go to the extreme here, lets completely remove firearms from the entire country. Ok, so now all firearms are gone. People that want to kill, harm and/or maim people will still be able to do so.
And the fact that it is easier to put laws in place that may help with a small amount of tools used in violent crime is easier that tackling the main issue of mental health and the criminals that commit the act of violence.
A man stabs another man with a knife.
Should we:
a: Make laws to restrict knives
or
b: look at why the man stabbed the other person and try to solve the behavior
so you pick a:
now same man uses screw driver to stab another man
now what do you choose
October 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm #814749
wakefloodParticipantReally? That’s your argument? Why not live in the real world and answer the question.
If you truly support UBC, as you stated you did, what does IT look like?
October 16, 2014 at 6:07 pm #814750
wakefloodParticipantYou’re a thoughtful person. Surely you’ve put together something in your mind. Sell us. I truly want to believe that you support UBC.
October 16, 2014 at 6:07 pm #814751
EllisdMemberWe really want the same thing here responsibility and accountability.
The only difference is that you are willing to accept the MANY negatives, probably because they do not effect you. I just simply refuse to vote for a pile of crap just because there is a small piece of good in it.
October 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm #814752
Seattle TrashMemberI believe other states have put a timeframe on what constitutes “transfers”, so lending or borrowing under a certain time period, say 14 days, 72 hours, or 30 days, wouldn’t be subject to these new rules. Looks like 594 does not?
However, I’m not sure that would do much to ease people’s minds. For example, as JoB pointed out, there could be a quick lend to someone who is not able to pass a background check, and the damage could be done within the specified time frame. It also seems silly that someone who does cleaning or repairs for others could be breaking the law by doing so. Would it be something that is heavily enforced? Hard to say–I don’t think it would be. (I still haven’t read through the entire bill, to be clear)
I come from a background of family and friends who are gun owners, AND those who have been victims of gun and knife violence. I always find merits in both sides of the gun control debate, as I do with 594. Shame we can’t have a bill to outlaw poor intent.
October 16, 2014 at 6:14 pm #814753
EllisdMember@ seattle trash
If it is actively enforced or not, I do not like to break the law. If enforced, the intent or spirit of the law doesn’t matter the law matters black and white. You could roll the dice and go jury trial sure. If this initiative had an exemption for CCW holders, exemption for safety training, etc, I think it would be a lot better and would vote for it hands down.
October 16, 2014 at 6:16 pm #814754
dingdongbuttholeMemberWhy treat the symptoms instead of what’s causing the crazies to kill?
Why try to ban guns when the crazy people are still crazy?
they’ll go buy knives or sharp objects or rig a car or make a big boom.
If they want to cause harm, they will. Just like 9/11. they wanted to cause harm, instead of using a bomb, they used planes. and i don’t think we should ban planes….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.