POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

Dave Workman · Apr 30, 2013

Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

YES

YES, provided in exchange the state abolishes the pistol registry and record keeping is prohibited, and there are exemptions for CPL holders, transfers between family members, and loans to friends

NO under any circumstances

slapmonkay · Apr 30, 2013

The question is 'would you Support or Oppose' but the available options are Yes/No, could be confusing.

gogodawgs · Apr 30, 2013

I voted 'no'. Although, if the bill is unenforceable (i.e. voluntary), abolishes the registry, records, etc then a qualified yes may come forward as a strategy...

Dave we have had this conversation in person and you know my stance.

BigDave · Apr 30, 2013

Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.

Jeff Hayes · Apr 30, 2013

BigDave said:
Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.

+1

Dave Workman · Apr 30, 2013

BigDave said:
Depends soley upon what you mean by "universal background checks" This is like Obama asking our Legislatures to Support Obama Care and just sign it with out reading it.

it is pretty widely known — evidently you were napping at the time

— that "universal background checks" means no gun transactions without a background check. Gun Shows, private transactions between family members, friends etc; they'd all be included.

BigDave · Apr 30, 2013

Dave Workman said:
it is pretty widely known — evidently you were napping at the time — that "universal background checks" means no gun transactions without a background check. Gun Shows, private transactions between family members, friends etc; they'd all be included.

Actually Dave, it's not widely known as you suggest as there are different versions floating around and waiting to be proposed. My statement of wanting more information before committing is what each of us need to be asking instead of assuming what another means. Asked Cantwell and Murray if they Support the 2nd Amendment and they will tell you yes, but in their view they do and in our view No Way In H$LL Do They.

Improving the background checks to ensure all information is available, YES.
At Guns Shows for those who sell there as a business YES, for those private citizens coming to sell or trade an item/s from their private collections then NO.
Private Transactions as a requirement for background checks then NO but offer a way for citizens to have background checks ran, YES.

The recent attempt by SAF, Gottlieb and Yourself promoted, is playing with fire, and likely came out a little singed from it.
Anytime you offer up a bill, there is no guarantee that the end result will be what you want it to be so keep it simple, direct and both sides of the isle need to stop piling on garbage and just muddying up the issues.

davidmcbeth · Apr 30, 2013

nice poll .... cannot figure out what yes and no means ... and no maybe vote allowed ...

deanf · Apr 30, 2013

The question is 'would you Support or Oppose' but the available options are Yes/No, could be confusing.

"Did you walk to work or pack your lunch?"

ShanLi · Apr 30, 2013

What's the point

It will always be "NO". The laws we already have (fed and state) are not enforced so why make new ones to not enforce. Besides, I think the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed they were making their point clearly and would be appalled at how it is now parsed. The amendments (including the 2nd) were only written down to entice those colonies who REALLY mistrusted government to join the federation. Most people just assumed them. Pretty silly, I know. It should be clear by now that when you write stuff into law you just give those who oppose you a point of argument. It never settles anything. If you want to see that process speeded up so you can really appreciate it, just give up your rights as spelled out in the BoR. You will be enslaved so fast you won't know what hit you. "NO", because I don't know what cut we are on but, I think it's closing in on 1,000 (and lights out). It's getting really frustrating to see people trying to be reasonable in dealing with those who would enslave us. Call me extreme and marginalize me.

sidestreet · Apr 30, 2013

What ShanLi said...,

ShanLi said:
It will always be "NO". The laws we already have (fed and state) are not enforced so why make new ones to not enforce. Besides, I think the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed they were making their point clearly and would be appalled at how it is now parsed. The amendments (including the 2nd) were only written down to entice those colonies who REALLY mistrusted government to join the federation. Most people just assumed them. Pretty silly, I know. It should be clear by now that when you write stuff into law you just give those who oppose you a point of argument. It never settles anything. If you want to see that process speeded up so you can really appreciate it, just give up your rights as spelled out in the BoR. You will be enslaved so fast you won't know what hit you. "NO", because I don't know what cut we are on but, I think it's closing in on 1,000 (and lights out). It's getting really frustrating to see people trying to be reasonable in dealing with those who would enslave us. Call me extreme and marginalize me.

+1000

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Sparky508 · Apr 30, 2013

Had to put down a NO for this. Not one more inch, is where I am hanging my hat right now. I dont think they can make enough concessions to make me line up for it.

Alpine · Apr 30, 2013

No.

Even if you got them to put in a provision to "abolish" the registry you couldn't trust them to do it, it would be kept somewhere.

When was the last time a civil servant got held accountable by a DA for harassing a law abiding citizen? Besides, the feds would clone that registry from the state anyway, it's there for good, no way to get rid of it.

My eyes have been opened a lot this last year by Obama and his cronies and I don't trust the government anymore than I can throw it, which isn't far. I made a huge mistake thinking gridlock in WA could work and protect us, and I got sucked in by Inslime's lies that he didn't think we needed any more gun laws and I because I thought McKenna was a RINO who would sacrifice gun rights to the left to get what he wanted. I know now that I was for sure at least half wrong, guess I'll never find out if I was also wrong about McKenna. I'm prepared to eat huge crow for that too, but I won't make that mistake twice. Next ballot the GOP needs to get someone like Rossi.

IMO, attempts for "compromise" like what Gotliebb and others are doing are a wasted effort. The gun grabbing left won't be happy until they get every gun out of every American's hands. They use words like "compromise, reasonable, moderate, middle ground" but you know that if they get anything at all, in a few years when the new laws have failed to prevent the next mass shooting, they'll just ask for more restrictions.

No more compromise.

Jeff Hayes · Apr 30, 2013

Alpine said:
No.

Even if you got them to put in a provision to "abolish" the registry you couldn't trust them to do it, it would be kept somewhere.

When was the last time a civil servant got held accountable by a DA for harassing a law abiding citizen? Besides, the feds would clone that registry from the state anyway, it's there for good, no way to get rid of it.

My eyes have been opened a lot this last year by Obama and his cronies and I don't trust the government anymore than I can throw it, which isn't far. I made a huge mistake thinking gridlock in WA could work and protect us, and I got sucked in by Inslime's lies that he didn't think we needed any more gun laws and I because I thought McKenna was a RINO who would sacrifice gun rights to the left to get what he wanted. I know now that I was for sure at least half wrong, guess I'll never find out if I was also wrong about McKenna. I'm prepared to eat huge crow for that too, but I won't make that mistake twice. Next ballot the GOP needs to get someone like Rossi.

IMO, attempts for "compromise" like what Gotliebb and others are doing are a wasted effort. The gun grabbing left won't be happy until they get every gun out of every American's hands. They use words like "compromise, reasonable, moderate, middle ground" but you know that if they get anything at all, in a few years when the new laws have failed to prevent the next mass shooting, they'll just ask for more restrictions.

No more compromise.

That is where I am as well, done.

Bookman · May 1, 2013

jsanchez · May 1, 2013

Look I lived 38 years in Oakland, CA. They have universal background checks, and it does nothing to stop gun crime. In Oakland 60% of the guns used in crime were traced back to Traders sporting good store in the nieghboring city of San Leandro. A large part of the purchases were Straw. There was a $35 fee for every transfer.

I don't care about this. I care about them trying to ban my assault weapons and high capacity mags, you know thats next on their agenda, and I'm not going to tolerate that.

I am going to be paying attention to the people that are funding this ballot item, and they are being funded by this guy, Nick Hanauer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

kparker · May 1, 2013

Dave,

With all due respect: while the meanings of "universal" and "background check" may be quite clear, the meaning of "transfer" is certainly not.

Unless that meaning were defined within the bill as meaning only the permanent transfer of ownership, then we would be right to exert the utmost efforts to oppose it. (And this is not random paranoia--some of the federal proposals defined "transfer" to cover just about any kind of temporary physical possession.)

Schlepnier · May 1, 2013

Dave....

NO

And here are a few reasons why-

1.it would only effect law abiding citizens which prevents no crimes since they are not the ones committing them.
2.criminal will never check their firearms and will not get them legally in the first place.
3.it would REQUIRE a national or state gun registry with gun confiscation as per the justice departments own research study.
4.it is yet another unjustified and ineffective crime prevention tactic that is an infringement on our rights- both private property and second amendment.

Freedom1Man · May 1, 2013

Either a poorly worded question or one that people are just not comprehending.

Would I support OR oppose 'universal background check?'

Yes, I would support or oppose this.

Everyone else is ignoring the question and saying, "NO." Which in the context of the question means that they would sit on the sidelines doing not caring one way of the other.

OC for ME · May 1, 2013

poll: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

Yes (I support universal background checks) or (I oppose universal background checks)

Yes but only with certain conditions/exemptions (I support universal background checks with certain conditions/exemptions) or (I oppose universal background checks with certain conditions/exemptions)

No :question:

Rephrase the question please.

POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

YES

YES but only with certain conditions/exemptions

NO

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Banned

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member