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

[Dana7360]

It is irrelevant, his money he can waste it if he wants, but they will never have enough votes to repeal the second.

Bill Gates isn't trying to repeal the second amendment.

What he's try to do is help get reasonable gun safety laws passed.

No one will lose their guns. The only thing that initiative will do is require background checks to prevent criminals etc from illegally purchasing a gun or even have a gun.

If you're not a felon or have mental issues or a history of domestic violence etc this law will never effect you beyond having to fill out a form.

I can't believe that people would want a criminal to be able to just walk into a store and pick out the gun they want to use in their next crime.

Oh and he's not wasting his money, that ballot initiative will pass. If you know anything about Washington state you would know that the majority of the population is in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area and it's nothing but liberals. Liberals out number the conservatives in Washington so on a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose.

It is irrelevant, his money he can waste it if he wants, but they will never have enough votes to repeal the second.

Bill Gates isn't trying to repeal the second amendment.

What he's try to do is help get reasonable gun safety laws passed.

No one will lose their guns. The only thing that initiative will do is require background checks to prevent criminals etc from illegally purchasing a gun or even have a gun.

If you're not a felon or have mental issues or a history of domestic violence etc this law will never effect you beyond having to fill out a form.

I can't believe that people would want a criminal to be able to just walk into a store and pick out the gun they want to use in their next crime.

Oh and he's not wasting his money, that ballot initiative will pass. If you know anything about Washington state you would know that the majority of the population is in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area and it's nothing but liberals. Liberals out number the conservatives in Washington so on a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose.

there are already background checks at stores??

I believe that they are at stores but not at gun shows or sales between private citizens. Which is the loophole that will be closed with this law.

I used the wrong words. My mistake. I should have asked do you want a criminal to be able to walk into a gun show and buy his gun for his next crime?

I'm pretty sure that the people of Washington state don't want that to continue.

What is the nra going to argue? That yes they want criminals to be able to just walk into a gun show and buy their weapon of their next crime? The only way they can argue against it is if they lie and make it about taking away guns or violating the second amendment. Which the people of Washington aren't that stupid. They know what the issue is and lying will only offend more voters. The second amendment clearly says that guns are to be regulated. All this is, is safety regulations to prevent criminals, those with mental issues and those with a history of domestic abuse from getting guns.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be against it.

I guess we will put you down as a blissful sheeple. The purpose of "Universal BGC's" is two fold

1) to create a demand for complete gun registration-which is the only way to enforce that stupid law that the federal government has no proper power to enact

2) and to turn millions of people into "criminals" when they sell a gun to a neighbor or a friend and don't bother with the hassle of a background check

Only a MORON says that the 2a says guns are to be regulated. Smart people realize that

a) the BILL OF RIGHTS DELEGATES NO POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

b) the militia being Regulated has nothing to do with people and their choice of arms being regulated

when you make such a claim it proves to me you are absolutely clueless about the bill of rights, the US Constitution and English in general. what complete idiocy

You can post that garbage all day long. You can shout it in caps all you want. It still won't make anything you posted true and what I posted untrue.

If you don't think that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate guns then you better tell that to supreme court justice antonin scalia. He disagrees with you and so do many other previous and current supreme court justices.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

All your shouting, twisting and selective parts of the constitution won't change the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate guns.

Even if the supreme court had not ruled that the second amendment can regulate guns, the government can still regulate guns. It's called the commerce clause. It's a simple one sentence in the constitution that gives the congress the power to regulate commerce.

I've been researching supreme court rulings on this subject and there are several cases where the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment allows congress to regulate guns. There are too many to list here so if you want to read about them do the search.

Here's a very good place to start: 1876 U.S. versus Cruilshank. Then work your way up to the 21st century. It's fascinating reading and you just might learn something.

 

[turtledude]

[


Bill Gates isn't trying to repeal the second amendment.

What he's try to do is help get reasonable gun safety laws passed.

No one will lose their guns. The only thing that initiative will do is require background checks to prevent criminals etc from illegally purchasing a gun or even have a gun.

If you're not a felon or have mental issues or a history of domestic violence etc this law will never effect you beyond having to fill out a form.

I can't believe that people would want a criminal to be able to just walk into a store and pick out the gun they want to use in their next crime.

Oh and he's not wasting his money, that ballot initiative will pass. If you know anything about Washington state you would know that the majority of the population is in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area and it's nothing but liberals. Liberals out number the conservatives in Washington so on a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose.

there are already background checks at stores??[/QUOTE]


I believe that they are at stores but not at gun shows or sales between private citizens. Which is the loophole that will be closed with this law.

I used the wrong words. My mistake. I should have asked do you want a criminal to be able to walk into a gun show and buy his gun for his next crime?

I'm pretty sure that the people of Washington state don't want that to continue.

What is the nra going to argue? That yes they want criminals to be able to just walk into a gun show and buy their weapon of their next crime? The only way they can argue against it is if they lie and make it about taking away guns or violating the second amendment. Which the people of Washington aren't that stupid. They know what the issue is and lying will only offend more voters. The second amendment clearly says that guns are to be regulated. All this is, is safety regulations to prevent criminals, those with mental issues and those with a history of domestic abuse from getting guns.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be against it.[/QUOTE]


I guess we will put you down as a blissful sheeple. The purpose of "Universal BGC's" is two fold

1) to create a demand for complete gun registration-which is the only way to enforce that stupid law that the federal government has no proper power to enact

2) and to turn millions of people into "criminals" when they sell a gun to a neighbor or a friend and don't bother with the hassle of a background check

Only a MORON says that the 2a says guns are to be regulated. Smart people realize that

a) the BILL OF RIGHTS DELEGATES NO POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

b) the militia being Regulated has nothing to do with people and their choice of arms being regulated

when you make such a claim it proves to me you are absolutely clueless about the bill of rights, the US Constitution and English in general. what complete idiocy[/QUOTE]





You can post that garbage all day long. You can shout it in caps all you want. It still won't make anything you posted true and what I posted untrue.

If you don't think that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate guns then you better tell that to supreme court justice antonin scalia. He disagrees with you and so do many other previous and current supreme court justices.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

All your shouting, twisting and selective parts of the constitution won't change the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate guns.

Even if the supreme court had not ruled that the second amendment can regulate guns, the government can still regulate guns. It's called the commerce clause. It's a simple one sentence in the constitution that gives the congress the power to regulate commerce.

I've been researching supreme court rulings on this subject and there are several cases where the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment allows congress to regulate guns. There are too many to list here so if you want to read about them do the search.

Here's a very good place to start: 1876 U.S. versus Cruilshank. Then work your way up to the 21st century. It's fascinating reading and you just might learn something.[/QUOTE]


Hey amateur , I taught constitutional law. Cruikshank held that the restriction on government by the 2A was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the right preexisted the constitution. Scalia's comments about other regulations are DICTA and do not discern between FEDERAL action, which is constitutionally dubious-at best-and state regulation which until McDONALD did not implicate 2nd amendment concerns.

the commerce clause was a dishonest expansion by FDR. BUT since private sales cannot be INTER-STATE and based on LOPEZ, purely INTRA-STATE sales don't meet the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nexus

The 5 Justices who ruled correctly on Heller have all shown distaste for the FDR expansion of the CC. Read Roberts decision in the Obama care legislation. He rejected the CC as did the four dissenters

but lets get back to your oozing stupidity of saying that it is the 2A that allows regulation of firearms. that is so stupid you have been permanently branded clueless by me on this subject

Do yourself a favor, get an Ivy league level Law Degree, spend 30 years on this issue including being both counsel for NRA affiliates and the Federal government an get back to me


oh BTW, there is nothing reasonable about unconstitutional laws that have no prayer of doing anything useful

Can you find a study that demonstrates the brady bill requirement that FFLs do BGCs actually decreased crime? Guess what, there are none. SO why would expanding BGCs do anything additional given that unless there is complete registration, there is no way to enforce UBGCs

 

[Unkotare]

Gates can do what he wants with his money, but he'd save a whole lot more people by sinking that dough into his anti-malaria campaign.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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>

That's like me giving a nickle

just some perspective

and rich people donating to control your life isn't something to be happy about

 

[blastoff]

I guess now the Liberals love him. I can remember when they thought he was Satan, especially when he was building his house.

Funny how the Right defends the rich as long as they're Conservative. But find a rich man who does good for the less fortunate and they turn on him.

Sounds like how dimocrats think of blacks. If they're dims they're fine. But lean Republican or conservative and they get it with both barrels from the wonderful party of inclusiveness and diversity.

 

[Dana7360]

Hey amateur , I taught constitutional law. Cruikshank held that the restriction on government by the 2A was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the right preexisted the constitution. Scalia's comments about other regulations are DICTA and do not discern between FEDERAL action, which is constitutionally dubious-at best-and state regulation which until McDONALD did not implicate 2nd amendment concerns.

the commerce clause was a dishonest expansion by FDR. BUT since private sales cannot be INTER-STATE and based on LOPEZ, purely INTRA-STATE sales don't meet the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nexus

The 5 Justices who ruled correctly on Heller have all shown distaste for the FDR expansion of the CC. Read Roberts decision in the Obama care legislation. He rejected the CC as did the four dissenters

but lets get back to your oozing stupidity of saying that it is the 2A that allows regulation of firearms. that is so stupid you have been permanently branded clueless by me on this subject

Do yourself a favor, get an Ivy league level Law Degree, spend 30 years on this issue including being both counsel for NRA affiliates and the Federal government an get back to me


oh BTW, there is nothing reasonable about unconstitutional laws that have no prayer of doing anything useful

Can you find a study that demonstrates the brady bill requirement that FFLs do BGCs actually decreased crime? Guess what, there are none. SO why would expanding BGCs do anything additional given that unless there is complete registration, there is no way to enforce UBGCs[/QUOTE]



Please show me where I used the words federal government. Because I didn't. Government is both federal and state. So what I posted is correct.

Please tell me what gun was 100% made in one state?

You can't. Which means congress, whether state or federal, can regulate guns

Even if it was made and sold in only one state, the case of Gonzalez and Raich, says even if the product was 100% made and sold in one state, the commerce clause is applied:

The ruling was 6-3 with Justice Scalia joining Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer for the majority. It was one of the few times in the Court's history that Conservative justices sided with those for the legalization of illicit drugs. Thanks to Justices Scalia and Kennedy, Justices Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor were in the minority.

The opinion began by pointing out the Respondents did not dispute that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:

Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The relevant precedents for the Court's analysis are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).​

There's already precedence for goods grown in one state in that case with marijuana in California.

You may know more about the law than I do but I can do a search just as easily as the next person.

That first case I pointed out in my post is a very good example of what's happening in Washington. It's been ruled that the government of the states can regulate guns. Which is what's happening in Washington. It's being done by the vote of the people instead a vote of the state legislature.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is irrelevant, his money he can waste it if he wants, but they will never have enough votes to repeal the second.

Bill Gates isn't trying to repeal the second amendment.
What he's try to do is help get reasonable gun safety laws passed.

Oh look -- another lie about gun safety.

No one will lose their guns. The only thing that initiative will do is require background checks to prevent criminals etc from illegally purchasing a gun or even have a gun.

You mean like the federal law that's been on the books since 1993?[/QUOTE]

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that they are at stores but not at gun shows or sales between private citizens. Which is the loophole that will be closed with this law.

You believe? You aren't aware that federal law has required background checks for over 20 years?

Tell me:
How does the state prove that a gun was bought w/o the buyer first undergoing a background check?

 

[Dana7360]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

Please show me a situation that has actually occurred that it was safe to put a gun in the hands of a criminal or someone who has mental problems.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is gun safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please show me where I used the words federal government. Because I didn't. Government is both federal and state. So what I posted is correct.

The restrictions of the 2nd amendment apply to actions by the states.

You can't. Which means congress, whether state or federal, can regulate guns

So long as that regulation is the narrowest, least restrictive action that meets a compelling state interest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

Please show me a situation that has actually occurred that it was safe to put a gun in the hands of a criminal or someone who has mental problems.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is gun safety.

That's not "gun safety", except for those who know they have lost the "gun control" argument and need to re-invent their schtick.

As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them. True story.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. Ignorance is never surprising.

Notwithstanding, the safest cities in the country, those with the lowest rates of violent and non-violent crime on average,are those with the least restrictive gun control measures. Duh!

Now ask me why that's so.

Oh, never mind. You don't really care, do you?

Really? Care to back this statement up?

Safe Cities In America - Business Insider

This one is for cities over 200,000.

First two are in California, then Texas, there's quite a few from Texas and California, so what does this tell you? Some places are safe, others aren't safe, it doesn't really matter about the amount of guns per se. There's a lot more to it than that.

Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities 2013 Infoplease.com

Population of more than 500,000, most dangerous are Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Phili, DC....
Safest in this category, El Paso, San Diego, NY, Austin, San Jose, LA, Portland.....

Again, says the same thing, you have liberal states, conservative states represented in both of these.

Uh, they have Oxnard as one of the safest cities in America - the article is bullshit.

Oxnard is a fucking barrio - a gringo there after dark will be a dead gringo.

 

[turtledude]

I believe that they are at stores but not at gun shows or sales between private citizens. Which is the loophole that will be closed with this law.

You believe? You aren't aware that federal law has required background checks for over 20 years?

Tell me:
How does the state prove that a gun was bought w/o the buyer first undergoing a background check?

when that guy claimed that the 2A permits or authorizes "gun regulation" I wrote him off as clueless and a liar.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

That's like me giving one dollar to some cause.

 

[turtledude]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

Please show me a situation that has actually occurred that it was safe to put a gun in the hands of a criminal or someone who has mental problems.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is gun safety.

That's not "gun safety", except for those who know they have lost the "gun control" argument and need to re-invent their schtick.

As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them. True story.

There are three reasons why gun haters push UBGC

1) so they can claim they have done something to keep the garment soiling soccer moms happy

2) to set the stage for complete gun registration-a scheme that has to be in place for the authorities to enforce private sellers conducting those idiotic checks

3) and the most disgusting but probably the main reason. to harass gun owners and hope many will ignore that law so the gun haters can brand them criminals and confiscate every other gun they own

 

[turtledude]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

you all claim the wrong people are criminals and the mentally incompetent but your goals and laws are designed to impact good people. your schemes are nothing more than incremental steps to gun bans.

and once you have adopted the faith based belief that some gun control stops some criminals, you have already adopted the belief that more gun control will stop more crime

and if one law doesn't you will claim that more laws are needed




Please show me a situation that has actually occurred that it was safe to put a gun in the hands of a criminal or someone who has mental problems.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is gun safety.

 

[turtledude]

It is irrelevant, his money he can waste it if he wants, but they will never have enough votes to repeal the second.

Bill Gates isn't trying to repeal the second amendment.

What he's try to do is help get reasonable gun safety laws passed.

No one will lose their guns. The only thing that initiative will do is require background checks to prevent criminals etc from illegally purchasing a gun or even have a gun.

If you're not a felon or have mental issues or a history of domestic violence etc this law will never effect you beyond having to fill out a form.

I can't believe that people would want a criminal to be able to just walk into a store and pick out the gun they want to use in their next crime.

Oh and he's not wasting his money, that ballot initiative will pass. If you know anything about Washington state you would know that the majority of the population is in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area and it's nothing but liberals. Liberals out number the conservatives in Washington so on a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose.

so much stupidity in one post

"reasonable" laws are ones that have a reasonable chance of deterring criminals. the background checks impose 21 years ago on FFLs have not been proven to do one damn useful thing. so why do you engage in the faith based belief that making private sellers (who cannot be forced to do this since their guns are not registered or recorded UNLIKE LICENSED DEALERS) will do something that the first wave of checks did not achieve

"NO one will lose their guns" where have we heard that crap before? the goal of this new law is to criminalize lots of private sellers and confiscate their guns.

Criminals cannot walk into a store and buy a gun without a check now-I guess you are clueless about that fact (as you are about most of this topic)

Liberalism is a mental disease when it comes to gun rights

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gates can do what he wants with his money, but he'd save a whole lot more people by sinking that dough into his anti-malaria campaign.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a professionally run charitable organization, it is not Bill Gates.

Grants are made based on a staff of professionals.

Who We Are - Bill Melinda Gates Foundation

I doubt Gates even knew this was on the docket. He rarely is involved in determining grant recipients.

 

[Dana7360]

It's amazing how conservatives just lie through their teeth and don't even realize they're doing it.

The ballot initiative that Bill Gates contributed to is for background checks. You know, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc.

It has nothing to do with taking guns from anyone. It has nothing to do with banning any guns or preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun.

It's a ballot initiative for gun safety.

Talk about lying....

Gun control doesn't have anything to do with gun safety -- its all about further limiting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose. As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them.

It's called democracy. You conservatives might want to give it a try.

Funny that you think that rights, and the constitutional protects afforded to them, can be overturned by a simple majority Maybe you need to re-take US Government 101.

Please show me a situation that has actually occurred that it was safe to put a gun in the hands of a criminal or someone who has mental problems.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is gun safety.

That's not "gun safety", except for those who know they have lost the "gun control" argument and need to re-invent their schtick.

As we see over and over and over, background checks do not and can not prevent people who are not legally able to get guns from getting them. True story.

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.