Bill, Melinda Gates Donate $1 Million To Gun Control Campaign

[M14 Shooter]

They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

There's no loophole, and universal background checks, like in CA, clearly do not keep criminals from getting guns.

I ask again: how does the state prove that a gun was transferred w/o a background check?

Have fun in your delusions

Says she that believes background checks are related to gun safety.

 

[turtledude]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

 

[Dana7360]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

 

[turtledude]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

 

[Dana7360]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

I find it more impossible for your claims to be true with every post I read from you.

It really does appear that you don't know what the word loophole means. So I guess I'll have to do your work for you and give you the definition of that word.

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

There's a loophole in that law. A way to legally not have a background check when buying a gun.

The error in the background check law was allowing no checks at gun shows and private sales. It doesn't matter that leaving that loophole was done just so the bill could pass. It created a loophole and a large majority of Americans want it closed. The people of Washington will have the chance to do just that in November. And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Since I must give you the real meaning of that word, it shows me you lack a fundamental basic vocabulary. Which leads me to believe you're not very educated beyond a few subjects. Which leads me to believe that you don't know the truth from lies.

It's quite apparent in your posts.

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

I find it more impossible for your claims to be true with every post I read from you.

It really does appear that you don't know what the word loophole means. So I guess I'll have to do your work for you and give you the definition of that word.

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

There's a loophole in that law. A way to legally not have a background check when buying a gun.

The error in the background check law was allowing no checks at gun shows and private sales. It doesn't matter that leaving that loophole was done just so the bill could pass. It created a loophole and a large majority of Americans want it closed. The people of Washington will have the chance to do just that in November. And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Since I must give you the real meaning of that word, it shows me you lack a fundamental basic vocabulary. Which leads me to believe you're not very educated beyond a few subjects. Which leads me to believe that you don't know the truth from lies.

It's quite apparent in your posts.

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

A similar law in Colorado was recently upheld as Constitutional by a Federal judge:


'Addressing expanded background checks, [U.S. District Judge Marcia] Krieger, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, ruled that if the government has the power to regulate sales from gun dealers, then "that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

"Thus, the Court has grave doubt that a law regulating (as opposed to prohibiting) temporary private transfers of firearms implicates the Second Amendment's guarantee at all."

She said requiring background checks for private transactions, whether in person or over the Internet, "does not prevent a person otherwise permitted to obtain a firearm from acquiring one, nor subject that person to any greater burdens than he or she would face if acquiring the weapon commercially.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest that a permissible burden on commercial sales of firearms cannot similarly be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan."'



U.S. judge upholds Colorado gun restrictions

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

turtledude said: ↑

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.


This is ignorant, delusional, paranoid, unfounded, hyperbolic nonsense.


No one is seeking to 'ban guns,' to argue otherwise is moronic and ridiculous.


Liberals accept Heller as settled and established case law, they make no effort to see it overturned nor do they seek to prohibit possession of firearms for lawful self-defense in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


Indeed, your deranged frothing at the mouth responses serve only to reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, where your lies and extremism pose a greater threat to the Second Amendment right than that of any 'gun-grabber.'

 

[FA_Q2]

They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

I live in Washington as well and I doubt very much that this initiative will pass. Resdents here might be quite liberal at large but many are also avid gun supporters. I know I sure will not vote for such an inane concept. You STILL have not addressed M14's simple point: HOW do you enforce such an edict?

The answer is simple - you cant.

One more time - it is impossible to enforce.

This type of law does nothing other than give people a feel good warm fuzzy they they did SOMETHING even if that something was entirely ineffective and moot. That does not help the situation - it hurts it. Such laws do nothing at all for criminals acquiring weapons (because it cannot be enforced) but simply gum up the process for law abiding citizens that actually care to follow the law.



Lastly, there is absolutely ZERO evidence showing that gun control actually works to accomplish anything at all. Gun control is almost entirely irrelevant to the overall homicide rate. What are you trying to achieve then if it does nothing for safety?

Another warm fuzzy. Well at least we did SOMETHING - who cares that it is ineffective. Well, all those people who's rights are being infringed upon without actual gain care and you should too.

 

[turtledude]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

I find it more impossible for your claims to be true with every post I read from you.

It really does appear that you don't know what the word loophole means. So I guess I'll have to do your work for you and give you the definition of that word.

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

There's a loophole in that law. A way to legally not have a background check when buying a gun.

The error in the background check law was allowing no checks at gun shows and private sales. It doesn't matter that leaving that loophole was done just so the bill could pass. It created a loophole and a large majority of Americans want it closed. The people of Washington will have the chance to do just that in November. And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Since I must give you the real meaning of that word, it shows me you lack a fundamental basic vocabulary. Which leads me to believe you're not very educated beyond a few subjects. Which leads me to believe that you don't know the truth from lies.

It's quite apparent in your posts.

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

A similar law in Colorado was recently upheld as Constitutional by a Federal judge:


'Addressing expanded background checks, [U.S. District Judge Marcia] Krieger, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, ruled that if the government has the power to regulate sales from gun dealers, then "that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

"Thus, the Court has grave doubt that a law regulating (as opposed to prohibiting) temporary private transfers of firearms implicates the Second Amendment's guarantee at all."

She said requiring background checks for private transactions, whether in person or over the Internet, "does not prevent a person otherwise permitted to obtain a firearm from acquiring one, nor subject that person to any greater burdens than he or she would face if acquiring the weapon commercially.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest that a permissible burden on commercial sales of firearms cannot similarly be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan."'



U.S. judge upholds Colorado gun restrictions

Judges are wrong all the time. and this is a state law not a federal law. big difference.
her reasoning would be unsound if applied to FEDERAL restrictions

 

[turtledude]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

I find it more impossible for your claims to be true with every post I read from you.

It really does appear that you don't know what the word loophole means. So I guess I'll have to do your work for you and give you the definition of that word.

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

There's a loophole in that law. A way to legally not have a background check when buying a gun.

The error in the background check law was allowing no checks at gun shows and private sales. It doesn't matter that leaving that loophole was done just so the bill could pass. It created a loophole and a large majority of Americans want it closed. The people of Washington will have the chance to do just that in November. And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Since I must give you the real meaning of that word, it shows me you lack a fundamental basic vocabulary. Which leads me to believe you're not very educated beyond a few subjects. Which leads me to believe that you don't know the truth from lies.

It's quite apparent in your posts.

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

you don't understand the difference between the state powers and federal powers

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.
That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Funny.
Loopholes are specific exceptions written into laws. That doesnt apply here.
Of course, all you know about it is what you've been told to repeat, so...

If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment.

Can't decide if this is dishonesty or ignorance. All the same, I guess.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

So.... where is the hole in the law that allows people to avoid background checks when bying a gun from a dealer?

And... how do does the state prove that a gun was purchased w/o a background check?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is seeking to 'ban guns,' to argue otherwise is moronic and ridiculous.

You have been proven wrong on this - Obama himself open wants to ban rifles, shotguns and handguns. No way to soundly argue otherwise

Liberals accept Heller as settled and established case law...

Another lie. When Heller came down, liberals whined, cried and squealed. They continually remind anyone who will listen that it was decided by one vote that the day will come when that one vote will swing the other way.

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

And I'm canceling out your vote. Do you have any evidence that it would affect crime in any meaningful way? How many guns bought at gun shows have been involved in murders?

 

[asaratis]

Again, it infringes when it is anything more than show ID, wait for the computer to spit an "OK" out, and you get your gun.

Exactly! There was recently a a court ruling that deemed a 10-day waiting period unconstitutional.

It does not infringe. You still get your gun

It does infringe on a felons ability to walk into a gun shop and pick out his weapon of choice

Gun shops run background checks before selling guns to customers. The check is done AS THE CUSTOMER STANDS IN THE STORE....in a matter of minutes! If the customer already has a weapons carry permit, the sale is even less impeded by paperwork.

The initial sale of a firearm links it to the buyer via the dealer's sales record. After that, it is the private property of the owner...to do with as he pleases...within the law.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gun shops run background checks before selling guns to customers. The check is done AS THE CUSTOMER STANDS IN THE STORE....in a matter of minutes! If the customer already has a weapons carry permit, the sale is even less impeded by paperwork.

The initial sale of a firearm links it to the buyer via the dealer's sales record. After that, it is the private property of the owner...to do with as he pleases...within the law.

Actually it's the feds (NICS) that does the check. You can get denied, even if you're a cop, but it can just mean they are too busy at the moment. I have never waited longer than three days, usually I walk out with one though.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The NRA has come up with about $25,000.

Bill Melinda Gates Donate 1 Million To Gun Control Campaign

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, have donated $1 million to a Washington state campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales, bringing the total amount the campaign has brought in up to nearly $6 million.

The donation to the Initiative 594 campaign was given Friday, but it was not made public until Monday, when it posted on the state's Public Disclosure Commission website.
<more>

NOw he can pat himself on his back and say "I DID SOMETHING" and he can feel good even if, in reality, it doesn't do squat.

Bill Gates should give everyone who is black in Ferguson a million dollars. That will show he's anti-gun and not a racist.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The NRA has come up with about $25,000.

Bill Melinda Gates Donate 1 Million To Gun Control Campaign

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, have donated $1 million to a Washington state campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales, bringing the total amount the campaign has brought in up to nearly $6 million.

The donation to the Initiative 594 campaign was given Friday, but it was not made public until Monday, when it posted on the state's Public Disclosure Commission website.
<more>

Because we all know criminals can never ever get guns once another law is passed. JUST ONE MORE LAW and it will all work.

Also, we all know the gun control idiots will stop at expanded background checks.

Just because you can't stop every gun from getting into the hands of a criminal does not mean you should not try to stop any.

people like you are willing to prevent ten million good people from owning a firearm if such a law MIGHT prevent one scum bag from getting one

some of you don't care about honest gun owners and will piss on our rights if you think it might stop one crime while most of you gun banners really want to ban legal gun ownership

one day the shit is going to hit the fan if the courts don't stomp on the crap people like you want

and the good news then, is when the shit hits the fan, people like you are going get shit on by the patriots

How does a background check prevent you from owning a firearm?

1) people like you want more than background checks

2) requiring private citizens to do background checks is a stalking horse for gun registration because we private citizens-who do not sell in interstate commerce (unlike licensed dealers) are not required to keep records of guns we obtain or sell. the only way to enforce expanded background checks is to create a complete registry of all guns because without that, you cannot tell when I sold someone a gun

3) when the brady bill required those who engage in interstate firearms commerce to conduct background checks, numerous studies were done and none of them could establish that those checks actually decreased crime

so you want new laws that are worthless and are designed to create a demand for gun registration

You failed to address how a background check prevents you from owning a firearm

Are you now conceding that it does not?

How does requiring Voter ID prevent you from voting? Both are weak arguments; one is unconstitutional.

 

[Iceweasel]

Notice that the libs have absolutely no problem with the filthy rich influencing elections if it's up their alley.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Notice that the libs have absolutely no problem with the filthy rich influencing elections if it's up their alley.

The filthy rich... and special interest groups.