Since the previous thread has devolved into a discussion of the merits of circumcision I thought I would bring this back and relate it to Initiative 1639. Once again yesterday, we had a mass shooter who bought his guns legally, had no criminal record, and his first felony was mass murder. What I usually hear from the 2nd Amendment supporters is:


"We should not enact laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals"

In a certain number (albeit a small number), the law abiding citizen goes out and shoots a bunch of people, in the process becoming the very worst kind of criminal. My belief is that the Country will not continue to accept this as the "cost of doing business". So, what do we do? I will vote for 1639 because it is reasonable and the folks on the other side don't seem to have anything to offer. What say you?

I offer my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this attack. I also recognize that thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Explain how 1639 would have prevented this shooting if it were in effect.

Also, I bet you were going to vote for this even before this synagogue shooting happened.

I will make no other comments until I hear something from anyone on the 2nd Amendment side make any kind of Proposal other than doing nothing.

So you can't explain how 1639 would have stopped this synagogue shooting?

Doing nothing is the default. If you want something done, you have to make the case as to why.

1639 violates people's constitutional and natural rights. So we need a very compelling reason to take such drastic actions. So how would 1639 have stopped this synagogue shooting?

That may be hard for you to do.

It seems to me that you have the "We must do something" disease.
This disease often afflicts liberals. It seems that they simply cannot control their desire to control other people under the guise of feeling and caring, while not fully considering the consequences of their actions.

By the way, I hope that you read the text of 1639 and consider what it actually does before you cast your ballot.
Please.

If he read the text of 1639, perhaps he can answer my legitimate question.

Here is Trump's comments: “If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better,”

So looks like Trump's proposal is that someone inside the synagogue should have had an AR15 to shoot the bad guy.

OK, the other side made a proposal. Now explain to me how 1639 would have stopped this synagogue shooting.

Staying out of “gun free zones” will keep you much safer than any law will.

Actually I would say that if you believe what what you said it's no wonder you feel as you do. You see the government takes money from people through taxes and then uses it as it sees fit. It was the peoples money before the government took it from them. If the government does not take it from people and the money remains with people how is that stealing?

Let's not get it twisted. The number one cause of death by another Human is " Blunt force trauma " The term "assault" rifle is a conclusion not the object. Assault rifle was made up by the anti gun whack jobs. We need to figure out the reason why BFT is so high. Good luck with that.

BOOM ! No pun.

More people are killed with hammers than guns. Why are hammers still legal? They can be bought at any hardware store. You BIGOTS!

But I’d feel so much safer if we outlawed time.

Almost as safe as I feel queued up for a TSA screening.

... time is the greatest killer of all and you BIGOTS still won't abolish time by giving the government unlimited power!

This mass shooting event would have still taken place if 1639 had been passed. I don't see the connection.

Nothing in 1639 either:

a) pertains to this mass shooting event
b) Would have prevented it.

On a side note:

No Washington State Initiative *ever* proposed or passed will ever accomplish anything for the good. In the period of EVER.

Washington State ranks #1 in Nation as the dippest of shittiest state initiatives ever conceived and passed then, now, and in to the future.

Washington State ranks #1 in the Nation of the dumbest voters. Ever.

Sorry Hank, we (206'ers for the most part) got you Californians beat for moronic liberalism...hands down.



This.

You don't have to like our malt-liquor drinking friend, but he's not wrong and you seem afraid to answer his simple questions.

Well, this thread went about the way I thought it would. Here is the part that you guys seem to refuse to acknowledge. Gun regulations that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (the 2nd Amendment) will continually be voted on by the people. If you continue with the Do Nothing approach, the voting population will be forced into an unmistakable conclusion - you don't care how many people are killed by mass shooters that obtained their guns legally and had no criminal record. As with most sane people, they will decide that is not acceptable. And because they have no choice from the Second Amendment folks except to do nothing, then they will vote on Measures like 1639, which will likely pass by at least 10 percent in the State. Now, you can say that those voters are uneducated, liberal, scumbags that should be deported but you will still have to live under the new law. Seems pretty stupid to me.

And in regards to the question, no, I don't think that 1639 would have eliminated the Synagogue shooting. And doing nothing would have exactly the same result. Until you guys man up, you will be the "victims" of an electorate that is fed up.

I build my own guns in my garage. I have a pile of unregistered ghost guns and all the tooling plus the parts to crank out a few more. How am I going to have to live under this law? I'm going to ignore it. It doesn't apply to homebuilt guns.



It also doesn't apply to single shot rifles. Since you can get a .22lr single shot upper for an AR15--it wouldn't qualify under this law. So this will just mean that every rifle sold will be a single shot .22lr AR-15 that you can buy a parts kit to convert to whatever you want. In fact, selling the completed lower is still outside this law because you could have put that .22lr single shot upper on it. So all this law will accomplish is to make sure that instead of hunting rifles, every rifle sold in this state will be a big black scary AR-15.



Maybe you didn't see the Liberty or Death rally with the 3% militiamen in Seattle, where over 50 armed men said they will not comply with the law and will bring the fight you YOUR STREETS. Half of these militiamen are active duty LEOs, you know the same ones you call fascists and throw piss jugs at. All the state LEO organizations are against this law. It is impossible to enforce and will do nothing.

Also, if you really want to hurt someone you don't need a gun.



If you want the most deaths possible than as History shows repeatly, you should concentrate the arms in as few people as possible. If you want the least deaths, spread arms far and wide so everyone is equal. Obviously you just want more shootings and death, you just want the government to do it. Fvcking cuck pu$$y bitch.

Deporting you is the politest thing we can do. When the day of the rope comes, libcucks like you will be LINED UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SHOT by right wing death squads. So please keep publicly advocating gun control as it will move your name up the list.

Yes! You are an advertisement for something, I'm just not sure what!!!!

I hoping someday to be a sponsor for a MALT LIQUOR company. I will work for product. Still waiting....

It will pass (not that I want it too). If I'm wrong I'll fly down to San Fran and buy you a glass of milk at your local convenience store while I drink a 40oz of MALT LIQUOR with you.

I didn't vote for 1639, but it will probably pass.

As I always note in any gun control conversation, gun owners will eventually lose out because all we ever bring to the table is "we need more guns"...parroting the corporate mouthpiece NRA.

When the options to reduce gun violence are "more guns" and "anything else at all", eventually "anything else at all" will win.

Fish on...

Todd

if it passes it will go to the SC and get dropped...

WA is a preemptive state, they cant make laws like that....

I would assume that it is unconstitutional on it's face. "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." How are 18, 19 and 20 year olds not to be considered citizens. They can be drafted into the military, handed an AR-15 and told to go shoot some brown skinned person in some sh!thole desert half way around the world but can't own a gun in their own home to protect themselves?

If they were in the military they wouldn't be handed an AR-15

Technically, it's not an AR-15 because the AR-15 is the civilian variant. They would be handed the fully automatic capable version, the M-16 or perhaps the M4 carbine. But these anti-gun fvcktards don't know jack sh!t about guns and have latched onto the "AR-15s are bad" bleating and probably don't even know the difference between an AR-15, M-16, M4 or even a 10/22.

AK-47. He meant AK-47

I think you're right

You don't see Israeli synagogues getting shot up. Maybe if American Diaspora Jews weren't pussified democrat libtards they'd be capable of self defense. You don't see Israeli synagogues shilling for refugees, Isreali synagogues shill for TRUMP! You don't see Israeli synagogues without guns on site. Imagine being raised in a culture that laments 6,000,000 of your people being killed over religion, living in a country that let's you own as many guns as you'd like, and still not defending yourself. The morticians report should have cognitive dissonance and being a dumbfvck as the cause of death.

I feel ZERO sympathy for these dumb liberal fvcks who couldn't see the collateral damage coming due to their shilling for refugees and bothered to even have a single gun onsite.

You're not that bad Paker. When the Right Wing Death Squads are rolling through Seattle killing libtards, just flash them the OK sign and give them a subtle nod so they know you are on our side.

Change the title to Jewish Center you worthless scumbag, Eddy. You gungrabbing cvnt.

According to Israel's Chief Rabbi, David Lau, this was a "Jewish Center" and not a synagogue. Actual real synagogues don't allow homosexuals into them as homosexuality is contrary to Judaism. Shows what you know you dumbfvcking lowlife scumbag, eddy. Actual real synagogues have a Cohen as a rabbi and a Levite standing guard. There was not a Cohen rabbi or even a Levite security guard. If they were acting like proper Jews the Levite would have turned this attacker into swiss cheese.

This Tree of Life was not a synagogue of actual Jews but of Satan worshipers who claim to be Jews but are not and lie.

"I know your affliction and your poverty--though you are rich! And I am aware of the slander of those who falsely claim to be Jews, but are in fact a synagogue of Satan." Rev 2:9

"I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." Rev 3:9

HEY EDDIE!

Every single drug that is illegal can still be found in every city in the US. guns are also not the only way to mass murder people. You can drive trucks into crowds, fly planes into buildings, blow up planes, busses, derail train, all these things are illegal.

Why do YOU focus on guns so much?

All banning something does is creates a massive black market for it overnight. That's why heroin has been illegal almost 100 years and it's still in every town and city in America. You can make a crude but functional slam fire shotgun with nothing more than a few pipes and other easily acquirable household items, in a manner of minutes. Do you know how easy it really is to make a gun? I guess a fag like you wouldn't know much about machine shops. I can crank out several AR15's from the machine shop in my garage per day if need be.

All you will do is feed the black market and give criminals more power, and they will still have guns. Guess who else will too? Me and in that sort of Chaos, I'll be roaming around killing anyone who has ever said anything in public or posted anything or the internet against guns. Guns are a constitutional right you fvcking retard. Unless you have enough votes to amend the constitution you can svck my dick and even then it will only be while I hold my 9mm ghost gun to your faggot forehead.

Gun grabbing faggots like you are why I have guns. Who are going to take away the guns? Other people with guns! "Killing people with guns is bad unless the government does it then it’s OK".

Fvck you Eddie, you goddamn scumbag lowlife. Fvck off pu$$y ass bitch just go eat a dick and shut your fvcking dicksucking mouth. How else are we supposed to KILL commies like you without guns? You'd prefer a fast death over a slow one right?

Your herring stinks bad Steele!

Still don't have anything to say for yourself, you fvcking cvnt. You still are disrespecting ISRAEL by calling this a synagogue in your title. Fvck you, go vote to ban guns you fvcking limp d!cked pu$$y bitch. On the day of the rope, when you are dangling from a fvcking tree other libtards thoughts and prayers are gonna be with you. Fvck you scumbag! DIE IN A FIRE!!!1!!!

YES!!!!

I1639 is unconstitutional, in order to participate you have to voluntarily waive your 4th and 5th amendment rights. Your private property is an extension of you and is also protected. You cannot be forced to waive your power.

A lot of money could be saved if the Legislature passed a law that required Initiatives to be legal (one issue, comply with law) and constitutional prior to submission to voters. The recent case, on the 1639, where all the Sec of State could do is certify sufficient valid signatures, emphasized the need to a better filter.

There are a lack of pro 1639 banners because the main backer, may he burn in hell forever, was Paul Allen. Yeah lymphoma!!!! Fvck him I'm glad he died childless and alone. I'm sure Vulcan will try and fvck this state for years to come but they dropped the ball on 1639 after he died. Too bad it still passed due to fvcktards like Eddie. Fvck you eddie, I hope you die next.

This initiative is unconstitutional and will die in court. Not to mention that it is unenforceable anyway. If anyone needs me, I'll be in my cabin out in Northern Idaho waiting for the FEDS so we can reenact Ruby Ridge.

My suspicion is that 1639, or at least parts of it, may not past Constitutional muster.

That being said...and I know it sounds like a broken record...as long as we as gunowners let the gun manufacturers corporate marketing firm (the NRA) keep speaking for us, and answer every question with "more guns", then we will continue to lose more and more gun freedoms.

Gun owners need to ditch those shills, and then come up with some reasonable solutions ourselves to gun violence, or the rest of society will continue to come up with solutions for us.

Stop whining about them doing it, and start doing it yourself.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, what Todd said. 1639 is poorly written, will save very few lives, if any, but it is emotionally appealing. I think that's what gave it the win. Now I'm gonna' have to figure out how to store my guns legally.

Why? This initiative changes nothing. Specifically says right in there: "Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must
be stored." Have a lock on your front door? Gee it was secure, gee there must have been an unlawful entry. No trigger lock, gee they must have picked it.

The way to keep your gun freedoms is by not giving up your gun freedoms. There is no acceptable level of gun control. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is hard for you to understand?

If you're happy with non-gun owners making the gun laws, then just keep on doing what you're doing. It's working great so far.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't give a fvck about anything a non-gun owner says or thinks because they are not human beings but if they become a threat to me, I will not hesitate so simply shoot them.

So how are these non-gun owners going to enforce these laws without guns?

Good one. Hank saves the day again.

Fish on...

Todd

increase the charge to 20 years minimum when a stolen firearm is used in a crime....

increase the charge to 10 years for theft of a firearm...

punishing legal owners for others stupidity is the epitome of retardation....

I don’t often wade into debates on gun control but I will here since a diversity of thought is seriously lacking on this topic.

I voted for 1639. I’m pleasantly surprised it passed. Nicely done by all who voted for it!

In my view, there can never be enough gun control laws. The more, the better.

As I see it, the 2nd Amendment says something very different than what the NRA says it does. But more importantly, there are lots of folks with lots of strong opinions on the 2nd amendment. Those opinions are just that. Opinions. The NRA’s opinion is no more important than mine or anyone else's. So no matter how loud the gun rights folks scream about gun laws, their opinion is no more correct than mine.

The exception of course, is the Supreme Court. In our Constitutional form of government, the opinion of the Supreme court is the final opinion on interpretation of the Constitution. In the 231 years the Constitution has been around, the Supreme court has taken only one case regarding the 2nd amendment. That’s the Heller Case (2008). In this case, the court said the 2nd Amendment means we have the right to own a gun in our home for defensive purposes. Period. Done. Stop. That’s it.

The court said nothing about conceal/carry, or magazine limits, or background checks, or bump stocks, or anything else. Since 2008, there have been numerous State and local gun laws that have made it to the Supreme Court but all those laws have been upheld. The court decided NOT to hear the cases. So the gun laws that have been passed by State and local jurisdictions, were upheld by the District courts, were upheld by the Circuit courts, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Those laws are, in fact, entirely constitutional.

So the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what the NRA has been saying for decades. Although I strongly disagree with the Court on the Heller case, I find it encouraging that the Supreme Court, NOT the NRA, gets to decide what the Constitution means.

Further, the court has shown no indication they are going to expand the 2nd amendment past the standard they set in the Heller case. According to the Supreme Court, there is NO right to conceal/carry or assault rifles or anything else. In fact, the court is signaling quite clearly that laws that restrict the sale and possession of firearms are entirely within the Constitution.

You may disagree with that but before you get too upset, recall that this is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is possible that a future Supreme Court may expand 2nd amendment rights beyond the Heller case, but for now, that’s where gun rights begin and end.

In fact, the most recent gun rights case went to the Supreme court just last week. Once again, they upheld a California law that restricts the carrying of firearms in public. As we see more and more gun violence in our society, it’s likely the court will continue to uphold Federal, State and local laws that restrict the sale, possession, and use of firearms.

So Todd’s point is exactly correct. Unless gun owners take it upon themselves to advance the cause for reasonable restrictions on the sale, possession and use of firearms, we will see ballot measures like 1639. If gun owners do nothing to help address this issue, someone else will do it for them. And the courts are signaling that the Constitution allows for reasonable regulation, perhaps like Prop 1639.

In case you’re wondering, my opinion is the same as the four Supreme court justices who dissented from the Heller decision. In my view, the 2nd amendment does NOT confer an individual right to own a firearm, even in your own home for defensive purposes. The 2nd amendment says NOTHING about owning a gun in your home, or how it should be used.

My opinion is very different than the court. But I accept the Court’s decision in the Heller case because, in our form of Constitutional governance, their opinion is the final authority. I may not like it, I may not agree with it, but I will accept it.

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment is:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd amendment is about ensuring a “well regulated militia”, and that such a
militia is necessary for the security of a free State. In my view, it confers no individual right to own a firearm.

In my view, we don’t need a citizen militia to ensure our security since we have the U.S. Military that is under the command of the citizens (through the President and the Secretary of Defense).

The idea that we need an armed citizenry to defend ourselves against the U.S. Military is both absurd and frightening. If we ever get to the point where we need to defend ourselves from the U.S. military, the type of firearms carried by gun owners is laughable compared to what the U. S. Army carries. All the small arms in the country cannot defend anyone from the U.S. Military. That’s why we don’t rely on small arms (or the 2nd amendment) to ensure our security. We rely on the rule of law, respect for the Constitution, respect for law enforcement officers and our fellow citizens, the ballot box, a well-educated citizenry, and yes, the U.S. Military. That’s a fact.

It also renders the 2nd amendment completely obsolete and unnecessary. But that’s not a fact. That’s just my opinion.

Cheers to Prop 1639.

I won't comply....safety in numbers, they estimate there are 11 million AR's. FCK THE ATF !!

The government will spend more money and criminals won't follow the rules.
Congrats?

Coho, I'm not going to debunk everything you just said, only because I have problems communicating with low IQ people without calling them fvcktards. Normally, I don't talk to people who don't believe in 2nd Amendment because I don't believe in their rights to the 1st Amendment. Sorry that's just my opinion, but you have an opinion and I have an opinion plus a gun. But let's just set this aside for a second.

The opinion of the Founder's in the Federalist Papers is that it is an individual right, going back to the Magna Carta. Being able to bear arms for defense is a natural right that comes from God, it is not given by the second amendment.

The Washington Constitution reads: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." So explain to me why I don't have the right to bear arms to defend myself both within and without my home from filthy gun grabbing commies like you?

Also, when do anti-gunners publicly advocating for your rights to be taken away become an imminent threat to your liberty and when can you shoot them? Inquiring minds want to know.

WDFW, what about the guy that shot up the Synagogue? He obtained his guns legally, was not a criminal - until he committed mass murder. My reason for voting for 1639 is really simple. Gun owners need to come to the table and stop the nonsense of saying:
A. We need more guns
B. We need to enforce the laws already on the books.
C. Some other crap.

Otherwise, reasonable and sane people will recognize there is a serious problem with legal gun owners who make their first crime mass murder. By saying and doing nothing, the gun owners are saying - "Well, [Bleeeeep!], we don't care! Come to the table and talk or accept the consequences. Pretty simple really.

Couldn't have been said any better. Well done Sir!