# Typical Wash. DC BS.



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

In ?other Washington,? CCW will be regulated like privilege - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

:smt076


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

...And in _this_ Washington, we have I-594!
It's bankrolled by Bloomberg, and full of "common-sense" laws designed to close the "loopholes" through which criminals get their guns.

(Of course, the I-594 people, useful idiots all, seem to forget that criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws made to "stop" them. But since when was "common-sense" lawmaking noted for its common sense?)


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Not surprising at all about the DC version of Washington. The chief of police is an idiot and the city council is racist to the core. If the stay has not been put into place, then I can carry both open and concealed into that city since I am a Virginia resident. But darned if I would. There is nothing in that crap heap I need and since I, as a rule, don't like cities anyway I avoid the place like the plague.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

District of Criminals ( DC) says it all


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

tony pasley:


> District of Criminals ( DC) says it all


I love it! You are referring to the politicians of course?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

desertman said:


> tony pasley:
> 
> I love it! You are referring to the politicians of course?


That's the way I took it. :smt033


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The politicians, lobbyist, bureaucrats, not to mention the convicted felons( but they are honest crooks)


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

I just can't believe how many sheep there are out there that willingly give away their freedoms to the power grabbers. Sad state of affairs. The real tragedy is that a certain percentage of our population actually believes that when things like this are effected into law, that we are all safer from harm as a result. As I have said in other posts, we are breeding a generation of morons and idiots, and I'm sure that's how the politicians want it to be. And I'm quite sure that this new carry permit system in DC is going to stop people like the idiot who jumped the White House fence yesterday who apparently had quite a bit of ammo in a car parked somewhere in the area. They didn't say whether or not he had a gun but I guess he had a knife (maybe?). Yup, more laws are going to keep us all safer from people like that guy. (or is it that people like that guy are exactly the reason we all need to carry defensive protection???, I'm confused, that's not what the government has been telling us all? They say we don't need guns because the police can protect us??????........... Oh yeah, I remember now, we don't need guns because the police can protect us all.)


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

One of those make-a-law-and-fix-everything people's initiatives (bankrolled by Bloomberg) is coming up for a vote in November, here in Washington State. I wrote the following editorial, which will run in two local, fairly-wide-circulation outlets on the day after we all receive our ballots:

*I-594: Common-Sense?*

Recent TV ads promoting I-594 tell us that it will close a "loophole" which lets felons and other violent persons acquire guns at will, without going through any kind of background check or other control. In one example, the Gunbroker.com website appears as a background graphic, while the speaker tells us that you can buy a gun by just going online, going to a gun show, or by meeting someone in a parking lot somewhere. Is this true?

If you believe that it is, I strongly suggest that you try it. You will be in for a surprise. There are several gun-sales websites, including Gunbroker.com, and to buy a gun through any of them, delivery must be made through a licensed gun dealer, and only after you have passed the legally-required background check. You will find that the same method applies at gun shows, where the promoter provides the background-check service for the unlicensed participants at the show. As for buying a gun from some stranger in a parking lot, you need to know that law-abiding gun owners don't behave like that. They will deliver only to someone known personally, or otherwise through a licensed dealer, because they are responsible and obey the law.

But, yes, you really could buy a gun from a stranger in a parking lot, without being bothered by the legal niceties. People who buy and sell guns this way are called "criminals." A criminal, by definition, is someone who does not obey the law.

So let's put all of this together. Passing I-594 will not prevent felons, the mentally ill, and the violent from acquiring guns, because these people do not obey the law. So what good will I-594 do?

Did you know, by the way, that the three most recent gun massacres, in Colorado, Connecticut, and California, would not have been stopped by a law like I-594? The Colorado and California killers passed their background checks, in the latter case due to the inattentiveness of the local police, and bought their guns quite legally. The Connecticut killer stole the guns he used.

What, then, will I-594 do? It will burden and complicate the lives of law-abiding gun owners, but it will have absolutely no effect upon criminals or gun-crime. Under I-594, if my law-abiding friend wishes to borrow my shotgun temporarily, we will have to formally transfer it through a licensed dealer, which includes a 10-day waiting period; and then, when he gives it back to me, we will have to go through the same process again. How, exactly, will that stop crime?

Now, somebody might say, "I don't like guns, or the people who own them. So why should I care if their lives are burdened or complicated." But someone who voted to pass I-594 for that reason would be a bigot, right? And nobody wants to be a bigot.

Please vote "No" on I-594.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> One of those make-a-law-and-fix-everything people's initiatives (bankrolled by Bloomberg) is coming up for a vote in November, here in Washington State. I wrote the following editorial, which will run in two local, fairly-wide-circulation outlets on the day after we all receive our ballots:
> 
> *I-594: Common-Sense?*
> 
> ...


Nicely put.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Back in the day, good intentions usually accounted for something.

These days..........not so much.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

great argument. I hope it gets widespread attention and proper comprehension by many readers. It is truly amazing how politicians and power grabbers always campaign by selling us on making our lives safer with more new laws to prevent gun crimes, when your point about criminals not complying with the law to begin with is so well made. Once again, we are raising a generation of sheep who do not comprehend what is being done to them. I only hope they comprehend your dialogue enough to form an opposed view of this law that is on the ballot.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Steve if you want the idiots to hear your message you are going to need a rap video or cartoon because the ones you want to reach are either to lazy to or can't read


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

tony pasley said:


> Steve if you want the idiots to hear your message you are going to need a rap video or cartoon because the ones you want to reach are either to lazy to or can't read


Actually, I'm only trying to reach the "useful idiots" of San Juan County.
Most of us here are all-too-well-educated, Progressive, utopian thinkers, which is why I included that "bigotry" tag-line. They will hate to think of themselves as bigots, so it may change a mind or two.

My editorial will run in Orcas Island's weekly paper, the county-wide, online news outlet, and maybe also in the San Juan Island weekly paper.
I'm twisting the Progressives' own silly groupthink slogan back at them: "Think globally, act locally."


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

tony pasley said:


> District of Criminals ( DC) says it all


 Tony, I thought D.C. meant "Dirty Crooks".


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

shootbrownelk said:


> Tony, I thought D.C. meant "Dirty Crooks".


Since "Politics" is a corruption of "Poly" (Greek for "many") and "Ticks" (nasty little blood-sucking pests) it really doesn't matter what they call where they hang out....


----------

