WaGuns.org

Here I thought it was for Muscular Dystrophy Association.. I was hoping to see Jerry Lewis and stuff… dammit all to hell!

MILFs Demand Anal?

Anyone there now?

I didn't attend... Got home a little before 3... 3 hours of sleep... I couldn't be trusted around women chanting about people taking my rights away.

But, there is this pic circulating around... Look at the large crowd!

Massivedesign wrote:I didn't attend... Got home a little before 3... 3 hours of sleep... I couldn't be trusted around women chanting about people taking my rights away.

But, there is this pic circulating around... Look at the large crowd!

looks like a huge turn out for a 90% support of UBC... Maybe they should have got a permit for a larger area with that many people.

How much you want to bet that the media release photo is positioned and cropped to make it look like there's a lot more than there are?

I wonder if we'll be able to match numbers in Sunday at noon. Anyone going?

Just created this site today: https://www.facebook.com/NOon594

My Reasons for Objecting to I-594 as Filed on June 17, 2013


Section 3 [amending RCW 9.41] (1) - (4)

1. While transfers (i.e., a gift) between specific family members is exempted from background checks, sales are not.

2. Sales to family members must be conducted using a licensed dealer as an intermediary to perform the background check.

3. "Family members" are limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles. It isn't clear how in-laws are classified.

4. Informal shooting that does not take place at a legally defined shooting range that does not involve hunting would require a background check on the person you are with if you let them temporarily fire your firearm. Unless someone's life is threatened. Just allowing a friend to handle a firearm that you own would require a background check. In case you think this is a stretch, the initiative exempts the "transfer" of a firearm to another competitor in a shooting competition for the length of the match. This does not imply a permanent transfer of ownership, merely temporary possession of the firearm.

5. Criminals obtaining their firearms via theft or from illegal firearms dealers are already in violation of state and federal firearms laws. There is no explanation how subjecting the law abiding citizenry to background checks will help reduce crime. Nor is there an explanation how the new laws will ensure compliance where previous federal and state firearms laws have failed.


Section 4 [amending RCW 9.41]

1. If background checks results are delayed for whatever reason, the de facto waiting period, even for rifles or shotguns, becomes 10 days [vs. the 5 day federal requirement for handguns]

2. If you are new to the state, that potential delay expands to 60 days. If you are being stalked or have concern about domestic violence, you may be out of luck.


Section 5 [amending RCW 9.41.090]

Has the same potential for de facto handgun registration as existing Washington State law (i.e., records kept for 6 years), but adds more people to the potential database. As we have seen in New York, registration can be used to facilitate confiscation: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/ny ... ns-rifles/


Section 6 [amending RCW 9.41.122]

1. "AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington, including, but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter" - this addition imposes the background check requirement on parties that are not in Washington state, which are already subject to federal laws concerning the interstate sales/transfer of firearms


Section 7 [amending RCW 9.41.124]

1. "AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter" - this addition imposes the background check requirement on visitors to Washington state that they were not previously subject to


Section 9 [amending RCW 9.41]

First time violation: a gross misdemeanor. Per RCW 9A.20.020: "Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine."

Subsequent violations: A Class C felony. Per RCW 9A.20.020: "...by imprisonment in a state correctional institution for a maximum term of not more than five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than ten thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine."


Some criminals receive lesser punishments for actual crimes.

What's with the 7 guys there?

Spoiler: show

Well there are only 6 but I figured that a few of those gals look way not like a women...

I tried to do a head-count. Looks like around 70 in that pic?

Wonder what astronomical number they (MDA) or the news throws out. I'm thinking, instead of saying anything less than 100 sounds like nothing, they'll use an ambiguous 'dozens' or 'several dozen' is used instead. Maybe even 'large crowd'??

oldkim wrote:What's with the 7 guys there?

Spoiler: show

Well there are only 6 but I figured that a few of those gals look way not like a women...

They were called mother f$$$ers once so that now constitutes they are moms. Guess I can call myself a mom many times over

Sent from my ADR910L using Tapatalk

Finding the "7" guys is something like "where is Waldo"

oldkim wrote:Finding the "7" guys is something like "where is Waldo"

"My wife made me go. She's the boss."