No on 594 Rally

A law is only as good as the will to enforce it - Law enforcement have said they strongly oppose I-594 so I doubt the law will mean anything outside of King and maybe Pierce counties assuming it passes.

Regardless, I will put the date for this event on my calendar. It is a bad law and needs to be stopped.

Another cash dump into Wash. gun control effort: Is this overkill?

:banghead: :cuss:

The Seattle Times reported yesterday that Bellevue billionaire Steve Ballmer and wife, Connie have added another $250,000 to the already-bursting-at-the-seams campaign coffers of Initiative 594, prompting a source in the comparatively cash-poor rival Initiative 591 camp to observe, “This is just overkill.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/another-cash-dump-into-wash-gun-control-effort-is-this-overkill

I will be there. Hope to see everyone then!

And now some good news....sorta


‘Dueling initiatives’ battle in Washington all about money, messaging

Increasing national attention is being focused on the “dueling initiatives” battle in Washington State and it is all about money and messaging as today’s Washington Post carries a report that suggests the grassroots gun rights effort is waiting for the National Rifle Association to fully engage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dueling-initiatives-battle-washington-all-about-money-messaging

Dave Workman said:

Way to stay in the fight.



KOMO to host ‘Town Hall,’ activists announce pro-rights rally

KOMO will host a “Town Hall” discussion this Friday evening on the dueling initiatives, and early this morning, activists announced on the Open Carry Washington forum that they’re planning a “No on I-594” rally in downtown Seattle on Oct. 18.

http://www.examiner.com/article/komo-to-host-town-hall-activists-announce-pro-rights-rally

Click to expand...

I got my reservation for this event, I just need my boss to give me the time off, and I'm there.

I am at Como now for the Town Hall

we're going to start lining up at the front door at 645

we have to be screen to the metal detectors and then I'll take it upstairs it's going to be about 80 of us in the studio

Town Hall begins at 8 p.m. And goes until 9:30

how many of you guys are going to be there with me

Considering this is 2 blocks from work (sad face tears and frustration from working there) I'll stop in no doubt.

We lost....

We lost the debate tonite because the guy from the 2nd amendment foundation was not polished enough and people in the audience on our side were acting like idiots.

Show was live on internet and will be edited down to a one hour program to be aired Oct. 11 or 18 I think they said. I don't expect them to edit it in our favor.

I can't believe the idiots on our side behaving the way they did, they screwed it up and made us look terrible.

jsanchez said:

We lost the debate tonite because the guy from the 2nd amendment foundation was not polished enough and people in the audience on our side were acting like idiots.

Show was live on internet and will be edited down to a one hour program to be aired Oct. 11 or 18 I think they said. I don't expect them to edit it in our favor.

I can't believe the idiots on our side behaving the way they did, they screwed it up and made us look terrible.

Click to expand...

Did you know any of the idiots? Is it possible that they were not true gun supporters?

jsanchez said:

We lost the debate tonite because the guy from the 2nd amendment foundation was not polished enough and people in the audience on our side were acting like idiots.

Show was live on internet and will be edited down to a one hour program to be aired Oct. 11 or 18 I think they said. I don't expect them to edit it in our favor.

I can't believe the idiots on our side behaving the way they did, they screwed it up and made us look terrible.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion... from what I saw the pro-gun crowd did very well. The one issue that I did see was that many folks had to have a "back story" to their question and could not get to the point and ask the question, which ate up valuable time for answers.

Ralph Fascitelli came off as a goof many times quoting his stats as well as answering questions but not answering THE question.
Kate Beck from the Moms group (one of the last few to ask a question) asking a question (that to be honest was more of a statement) made her look silly and uninformed.
Rebecca Johnson Arledge, who has a JD, come off as inept. She needs to move away from gun rights and get back to directing the labor council.

from another pro-gun group that had members there....

(1)
the short blurb they just ran on the 11 oclock news was not as biased as I feared.

And the quote they ran from Phil Shave (WAC) was his accurate statement that it's already illegal for a private person to sell a gun to a person they believe to be prohibited...

I also like how Mr. Watson dealt with Ms. Stumbo's question about what Medical or Health organizations support 591.In a nutshell, he said neither initiative had to do with healthcare, IIRC

(2)
Here's a run down of most of the answers to technical questions looking for clarifications of 594 wording:

"Blah, blah, blah, common sense, blah, blah, blah, closes the loophole, blah, blah, blah, background checks on all sales and transfers, blah, blah, blah, it will protect cops, blah, blah, blah, California and Oregon do this, blah, blah, blah, it's only about "intent", blah, blah, blah, fear mongering and saber rattling, blah, blah, blah, King County Prosecutor Republican Dan Satterberg said so, blah, blah, blah..." Repeat ad nauseum...

Nothing of substance.

(3)
^ LOL . . . exactly. Emphasis on "Republican prosecutor."

Well, folks . . . I don't know how it looked from your computer monitor, but as someone who was in the audience I think that was effing fantastic!!!



Let me just run down some comments:

- First, kudos to the "gun crowd." Everyone that was there was well-dressed. Most were well-spoken and polite. We did not represent as "gun nuts," which I think is vitally important!

- To Phil Watson and Phil Shave, who represented us on the panel: If you guys are what gun owners are like, then I'm proud to be a gun owner. You spoke well, you looked good, and you clearly knew ten times as much about I-594 as the two to your left.

- The pro-gun audience members who asked questions were for the most part AWESOME. Kudos to omegagonzo (Carlos), who sat to my right and asked on question; he's our new WaGuns GQ cover boy. Other notables were Dennis Brislawn (attorney from Northwest Gun Law Group), John Rodabaugh (WAC president and the resident prosecutor for the night), and the two ladies from West Coast Armory North. All asked great questions, slammed home some crippling points, and made us look good. There were other great audience members too, but I don't know names or jobs . . . sorry.

- To Ralph Fascitelli and Rebecca Johnson Arledge, the pro-594 members of the panel: You were an embarrassment to your supporters tonight. You looked inept, and in fact you were exactly that. Now to be fair, you were defending an initiative that is such a fundamental piece of crap that you didn't have a snowball's chance of looking good up there, so you probably did the best you could.

As Phil Shave said at one point, "this isn't about background checks; this is about 594." Hell, if you put together a universal background check initiative that was actually well thought out and didn't contain 17 pages of flaws, I'd probably vote for it. Rebecca and Ralph just kept saying "close the loophole," and "oh don't worry about that transfer business, that's not an issue, this is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals." Uh-huh.

Well, I'll tell ya . . . I walked out of there riding a high. This is the first real glimmer of hope I've felt in a long time, and I think tonight illustrated one basic fact: I-594 looks really good in a 30-second commercial, but once you read it you'll understand that it's a disaster.


Now we just need to get that message out to more people!

I'm feeling good right now. The only thing that might make me feel better is a Smith & Wesson 25-5 . . . I'm off to buy some chances!

You were there in the studio. Wow didn't see you. I agree with parts of what you just wrote. But I think that the majority of the people in Washington state are going to pass this because they are not gun owners and just want to do something to make themselves feel safe. They don't care about your rights, they just don't want their schools shot up or movie theaters.

Is it honest to say that most of us here don't have a problem with background check if the cost was kept low, but that we do have a problem with section about not being able to share our gun at a range or when we go shooting in the mountains?

jsanchez said:

You were there in the studio. Wow didn't see you. I agree with parts of what you just wrote. But I think that the majority of the people in Washington state are going to pass this because they are not gun owners and just want to do something to make themselves feel safe. They don't care about your rights, they just don't want their schools shot up or movie theaters.

Is it honest to say that most of us here don't have a problem with background check if the cost was kept low, but that we do have a problem with section about not being able to share our gun at a range or when we go shooting in the mountains?

Click to expand...

I was not there. If 594 was JUST about fixing the mental health issues in the background check, I believe MANY of us would vote yes on it but as we know 594 is NOT just about background checks.

The Video from last night: http://www.katu.com/politics/Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274991541.html?mobile=y

I think it went very well and this morning I spoke to a few folks at the gun range who agreed. They will all be at the rally too.

NOTE - Updated link for non-mobile viewers.
http://www.katu.com/politics/Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274991541.html

jsanchez said:

We lost the debate tonite because the guy from the 2nd amendment foundation was not polished enough and people in the audience on our side were acting like idiots.

Show was live on internet and will be edited down to a one hour program to be aired Oct. 11 or 18 I think they said. I don't expect them to edit it in our favor.

I can't believe the idiots on our side behaving the way they did, they screwed it up and made us look terrible.

Click to expand...

I believe you are mistaken.

So do a lot of other people, evidently:

http://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=45961&start=60

After the microphone goes away is not a good time to be arguing from the audience, either.

Ralph lost when he said "I don't know." And when Phil Watson told him that his nose was growing.

Jeff Hayes said:

Did you know any of the idiots? Is it possible that they were not true gun supporters?

Click to expand...

None of our guys were idiots. The two Phils scored. I know both of those guys and they are "true gun supporters."

This is how stupidity, rancor, and division within the ranks gets started. Don't be so eager to accept the first misdirected criticism that comes along. If you didn't watch the program personally, you really missed something. The only down side was that the live feed was kind of crappy.

Moderation was balanced.

Dave Workman said:

None of our guys were idiots. The two Phils scored. I know both of those guys and they are "true gun supporters."

This is how stupidity, rancor, and division within the ranks gets started. Don't be so eager to accept the first misdirected criticism that comes along. If you didn't watch the program personally, you really missed something. The only down side was that the live feed was kind of crappy.

Moderation was balanced.

Click to expand...

I asked two questions.

No your reply is how rancor and division get started.

Where did I accept anything I was in fact pointing out that other possibilities may exist other than our guys are idiots. Maybe I was not clear enough I was asking if the idiots were perhaps actually anti gun folks attempting to make gun owners look bad.

Funny how a guy that says we need to stand together, your are correct BTW, is always one of the first ones to divide us, I always stand with you on gun rights but you do not always stand with me or others especially on OC issues.

jsanchez said:

We lost the debate tonite because the guy from the 2nd amendment foundation was not polished enough and people in the audience on our side were acting like idiots.

Show was live on internet and will be edited down to a one hour program to be aired Oct. 11 or 18 I think they said. I don't expect them to edit it in our favor.

I can't believe the idiots on our side behaving the way they did, they screwed it up and made us look terrible.

Click to expand...

I disagree Eric. i think not only did our side represent the issue with 594 well, the other side had no leg to stand on. Everytime they brought up the NRA, we shut them down with Bloomberg and the donations made locally. Ralph is a pathetic liar and that was made evident in the event.

I saw you in the video too. I'm not trying to bash you, but you had a crazy stare at the panel every time they panned on you. It didn't look good bud.

To be honest, the other side was very pathetic. Kate was the "Angry Cat/Sour Puss" and Rebecca looked like we was going to sell Avon on QVC. Cheryl was about the worst I have seen her in a long time too.

badkarma said:

I disagree Eric. i think not only did our side represent the issue with 594 well, the other side had no leg to stand on. Everytime they brought up the NRA, we shut them down with Bloomberg and the donations made locally. Ralph is a pathetic liar and that was made evident in the event.

I saw you in the video too. I'm not trying to bash you, but you had a crazy stare at the panel every time they panned on you. It didn't look good bud.

To be honest, the other side was very pathetic. Kate was the "Angry Cat/Sour Puss" and Rebecca looked like we was going to sell Avon on QVC. Cheryl was about the worst I have seen her in a long time too.

Click to expand...

I think Phil shave was excellent, he's sharp and a good representation. Phil Watson got some good zingers, but was relatively unimpressive...... Little Ralphie looked like a buffoon, he clearly didn't know what he was talking about, and when called on it his response was "well the republican prosecutor or king county says" just pathetic,

Watson however, as I said, didn't seem comfortable in front of the audience, he got sidetracked a few times, and once or twice kept referring to tired pro-gun bumper slogans, when better arguments were right in front of him.....

‘Forty-percenters’ get drubbing, again, this time in Nevada

Fresh on the heels of Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli twice using a discredited statistic about the number of gun transactions that occur without a background check in this country last Friday night, Saturday’s Reno Gazette-Journal – discussing an initiative effort in that state to create a so-called “universal background check” – also hammered down on the suspicious anti-gun myth.

http://www.examiner.com/article/forty-percenters-get-drubbing-again-this-time-nevada

badkarma said:

I disagree Eric. i think not only did our side represent the issue with 594 well, the other side had no leg to stand on. Everytime they brought up the NRA, we shut them down with Bloomberg and the donations made locally. Ralph is a pathetic liar and that was made evident in the event.

I saw you in the video too. I'm not trying to bash you, but you had a crazy stare at the panel every time they panned on you. It didn't look good bud.

To be honest, the other side was very pathetic. Kate was the "Angry Cat/Sour Puss" and Rebecca looked like we was going to sell Avon on QVC. Cheryl was about the worst I have seen her in a long time too.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your input. I'll see if I can work on my crazy stare. I was pretty pissed at the lady on the panel for trying to give a talking point for answering my question, and I get pretty intense when I taking in a lot of whats going on around me, and the panel body language and answers.

Maybe I'm living in a bubble, I hope that's the case. But I think the majority of Washington voters are going to pass this measure, because everyone thinks about themselves first.

I also think the only hope we have is to concede that we are for background checks but not for this law that takes away rights of teaching and recreational shooting.

I think this is a good practice exercise for the big fight next year when they put forth a petition drive to ban assault weapons.

I am open to arguments/rancor on our performance at the debate, call it an after action review, and I am going to post my opinion of how we could of done better.

Again this is how I see it in my bubble and I hope I'm wrong. I hope its not your guys bubble that gets broken on election day, because that can be very devastating and take time to recover, and honestly we are going to a have a much bigger fight on our hands when they come with there assault weapon ban iniciative next year.