Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

I-594 is bad news, tell your neighbors, friends, family, etc............

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by GunRightsCoalition, Sep 19, 2014.

  1. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    If your in Washington State keep hammering away to let people know how bad I-594 is. What I see is very encouraging and tells me that we are getting results but we cannot let up now as they are still throwing money at it like crazy trying to get it passed. If you believe the polls then we would be led to believe that I-594 is going to easily pass. I take polls for what they are worth because they are easily manipulated for the desired result. I prefer to rely on what the public says whenever they have a chance to respond to the media on the issues. In particular when seeing those responses from the most liberal area of the state when those articles are from the liberal media sources. Time and time again now I am seeing a lot of opposition in these responses with very little support. Those that do make posts supporting it get immediately hammered by those opposing it. To me that is a good touchstone by which to judge public support.
    Check the comments here for an example. There is no question that this is a liberal media source and that it targets the most liberal portion of the state.
    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Charge-Washington-robber-turned-to-Facebook-to-5763184.php
     
    federalist46 and Monica Cowles like this.
  2. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    I've been thinking the same thing. I've been hammering away on twitter against the hashtag yeson594 its just the same few people making posts and I keep updating them with facts about 594. Also the comments sections I see on the topic look mostly like they are against 594 like the comments on the komo debate here

    http://www.komonews.com/home/video/KOMO-to-host-Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274134031.html

    And most recently this SeattleTimes blog
    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/north...4-gun-background-checks-wont-deter-criminals/


    I've posted a couple of times on each and I would encourage all to do the same. When the average person hasn't made up their mind and they see mostly opposition hopefully they will side with us.

    Also, hit up twitter lets overpower them on social media.
     
  3. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    I don't use twitter much myself however when I do I use the following hashtags. #Stop594 and #GRC2A
     
  4. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    I mostly use #yeson594 not because I'm advocating it but that puts what I'm tweeting in the feed of those looking for that hashtag. I have the "I-594 VOTE NO" pic as my profile pic and all posts I make are absolutely clear that it is countering someone elses claim. Currently they are pushing a pic that is just words that say (FBI "Simply handing your gun to somebody else DOES NOT qualify as a transfer" now you have it straight from the NICS staff #yeson594)

    One of my responses was that wasn't the way I594 defines a transfer and claiming that the FBI said it wasn't wasn't a valid legal defense in court. I also made the arguement that if that were true why is there a specific exemption for temporary transfers in life threatening situations but ONLY for as long as the threat lasts. So far they haven't bothered to respond to me. A few days ago they would but now I think they just ignore me lol.
     
  5. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    Transfer is specifically defined in the initiative. Because of this the FBI definition is not applicable. Not that it necessarily would be anyway since this is a state law rather than a federal law. That means the Washington judicial system would need to determine what transfer means and it is a sure bet they would not go to some FBI statement to do so. Black's Law Dictionary perhaps but that would only be if it was not already defined.
     
  6. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    I almost forgot this article on MSNBC, the super far left leaning site, which has a poll at the bottom and out of almost 13k votes 76% of people OPPOSE background checks on all firearm sales

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-gun-report-details-reality-criminals-bypassing-system
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  7. waltermitty

    waltermitty seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    105
    Your first post appears to indicate that you disregard polls, but here
    you seem to use it to refute left leaning background checks. What
    am I missing that sounds as though you're being wishy-washy
    about polls? If they are in fact, easily manipulated, wouldn't you
    similarly assume that this poll was manipulated as well by gun
    rights proponents? r-
     
  8. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    That first post was mine so your referencing two people.

    The poll quoted though is an example of manipulation because of the target audience. MSNBC is viewed less by conservatives with strong opinions about gun rights and therefore it will naturally swing in favor of liberal opinion unless there is a very definitive opposition not just by one side but rather by all. The fact that such a great number are against it even after reading the article which is clearly slanted the other way is really telling by itself. These are not the polls that the supporters of I-594 are quoting though. Here is an example of manipulation.
    Phone Poll:
    Question: Do you support background checks on gun sales? (Most are going to say yes)
    Now to further manipulate it make all of those calls in a dense area where it is most likely to get support.

    Now this would provide an entirely different result.
    Question: Do you support background checks on all transfers of firearms including loans such as those made for hunting and recreational shooting?
    Then expand that to cover the entire area in question randomly and the difference is even more pronounced.

    With the MSNBC article and poll it the manipulation is right there for people to see if they read between the lines. It just backfired on them.
     
  9. waltermitty

    waltermitty seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    105
    (i failed reading comprehension) thank you for pointing out the flaw. I had simply glanced at the VOTE NO graphic and didn't read the fine print.

    separately, I have a differing opinion about MSNBC being viewed less by conservatives as proof that even their primary reader base is any better indication of the polls' slant. we can't really draw any conclusion to any polls. the second a poll is active, the gun proponents post links for the sole purpose of stacking the deck. we also boast about multiple entries, clearing the cache, etc and then declaring victory when the figures are in our favor. so why should we view the MSNBC poll you reference with any more credibility and anywhere else?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2014
  10. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    With the MSNBC poll we have a good idea of the audience already. Even if we disregard the tendency of conservatives to avoid it as a good source at best we would find it pretty even across the board. We then can see from the article itself that it is certainly written with the intent of invoking negative emotions from the readers. Following this we have a poll. If the poll was cold then the wording of the questions provided don't mean much for this one however we do know that it is one way they are manipulated. In this case the manipulation was the article preceding it. Even that would not mean much if we were talking about a small sampling of viewers. In this case it is not only large but it is far larger than what is normally used for polls that are supposedly scientific. As the sampling increases so does the accuracy. In view of the fact that it is clearly meant to obtain the opposite emotional reaction of the poll results it is no stretch to say that it is a better measure by which to determine that most oppose more regulations than some other poll where we have no idea how it was obtained that claims the opposite. This is actually typical among many of the online polls I have seen though. Add this to the other sources of input such as responses to media articles and you begin to get a different picture than what many would want you to believe. Of course there will be some that make multiple entries when they can (depends on how the site is set up) however there is no reason to believe one side or the other will be more successful at it. Therefore you can expect the same approx. percentage doing this on both sides and it can be discounted for the most part. The one area where it truly is susceptible to numbers manipulation would be at the server. I would then ask what purpose MSNBC would have to manipulate the numbers to get a number opposing the reaction they were seeking? That doesn't really make much sense. Would I bet that the numbers are truly accurate? Not a chance. I would say that they do provide a pretty good indication when added to the other sources of input that the world is not necessarily what many would have us believe. I.E. not nearly as many people support additional gun regulations as the gun control folks would have us believe. That doesn't mean I'm banking on it to stop I-594. It is just a source of encouragement as it indicates that we really do have a chance to defeat it if we keep at it.
     
  11. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,390
  12. Wayne

    Wayne Near Tacoma Active Member

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    207
    NRA-ILA workshop on defeating I 594. Register here.
    https://www.voteno594.com/RSVP
    September 27
    10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
    Elks Lodge
    6313 75th St W.
    Lakewood, WA 98499
    (253) 473-4127

    rsvp-here.jpg


    Monday
    September 29

    7:00 PM – 8:30 PM
    Spokane VFW Post #51
    300 W. Mission Ave
    Spokane, WA 99201
    (509) 327-9847

    rsvp-here.jpg


    Tuesday
    September 30

    7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
    Hal Holmes Center
    209 N. Ruby St
    Ellensburg, WA 98926
    (509) 962-7240
     
  13. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    NRA offering grassroots workshops, POGR taking vote pledges

    With just over six weeks remaining until the November election when the fates of dueling Initiatives 591 and 594 will be decided by Evergreen State voters, the grassroots is shifting into high gear, with a trio of workshops sponsored by the National Rifle Association announced today and a voting pledge drive by Protect Our Gun Rights (POGR) that has just been launched.


    http://www.examiner.com/article/nra-offering-grassroots-workshops-pogr-taking-vote-pledges
     
  14. waltermitty

    waltermitty seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    105
    thank you for sharing GRC - good food for thought. r-
     
  15. Michael Js

    Michael Js Greater Seattle, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    114
    “Here are my questions to you: Why do people and organizations cough up billions of dollars to line political coffers? One might answer that these groups and individuals are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in encouraging elected officials to live up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

    Another possible answer is that the people who spend these billions of dollars on politicians just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations for coughing up billions for politicians, you’re probably a candidate for psychiatric attention, a straitjacket and a padded cell.

    A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyists lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant special privileges, extend favors, change laws and do other things that if done by a private person would land him in jail. The major component of congressional power is the use of the IRS to take the earnings of one American to give to another.” – Dr. Walter Williams
     
    GunRightsCoalition likes this.
  16. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    Gun advocates ask for funs to fight billionaire ad blitz

    Washington State gun rights advocates fighting to pass Initiative 591 issued an urgent appeal this morning to get their message out in 23 newspapers around the state, an effort that is being overwhelmed, they say, by billionaire-backed advertising that threatens to “crunch our gun rights.”


    http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-advocates-ask-for-funs-to-fight-billionaire-ad-blitz
     
  17. BoatRanch

    BoatRanch Back and forth between Port Townsend and Alaska Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    44
    Are not these sort of laws already in play in Calif for quite some time?
    I don't believe I've seen that Calif has less gun crime?
    At least not in my old stomping grounds of the S.F. Bay Area.
     
  18. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    In reality they are even worse than CA. At least there they have an exception for loaning firearms.
     
  19. BoatRanch

    BoatRanch Back and forth between Port Townsend and Alaska Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    44
    Wow! But nonetheless, all those laws have not made places like Oakland, Sacramento, Vallejo, Richmond etc. etc. more safe. I know for a fact that guns in bad guys hands is still a big deal down there.
    So, proof positive that Washington is not going to be any different not unless all our bad guys and crazy people have a "come to Jesus" moment as soon as (if) this new law is passed. :eek:
     
  20. TMJ76

    TMJ76 Seattle New Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    13
    John Carlson had a 594 spokesman on his KVI radio show again the other day and tried to pin him down on the issue of transfers. The gentleman mostly stuck to the standard talking points, but eventually Carlson got him to admit that loaning a rifle to a friend for a weekend hunting trip would in fact require a background check under 594. The spokesman went on to say that this is a good thing since, hey, you never know if your friend has a restraining order or has been involuntarily committed. The relevant audio starts around 12:00 in.

    http://www.kvi.com/home/featured/-C...egally-viable-answers-on-I-594-276959481.html

    It's a small glimmer of truth from a campaign that has been less than forthcoming about the sneaky details in their initiative. The obvious followup question is, if you need a background check to make a loan for a weekend, then why not for one day, an afternoon, 10 minutes...

    Carlson also said that he's been trying to get Dan Satterberg (KC Prosecutor) on the show to talk about 594, since the pro-594 crowd throws out his name whenever someone has questions about confusing legalese. He said that Satterberg won't come on unless the 594 campaign organizes it, and so far they have refused. The spokesman would not give a straight answer on that one either (starts around 8:00).