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.