Washington Initiatives 591 and 194
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:45:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Washington Initiatives 591 and 194
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: How would you vote on these conflicting initiatives?
#1
Yes/No (D)
 
#2
Yes/No (R)
 
#3
Yes/No (I/O)
 
#4
No/Yes (D)
 
#5
No/Yes (R)
 
#6
No/Yes (I/O)
 
#7
No/No (D)
 
#8
No/No (R)
 
#9
No/No (I/O)
 
#10
Yes/Yes (D)
 
#11
Yes/Yes (R)
 
#12
Yes/Yes (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: Washington Initiatives 591 and 194  (Read 745 times)
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 22, 2014, 05:28:35 PM »

Initiative 591: Prevents confiscation of firearms without due process and implementation of more extensive background checks than those at the federal level. More info

Initiative 594: Requires background checks be performed on all gun purchasers. More info




No/Yes (R)

(I see no logical reason for anyone to vote Yes/Yes, but you can actually do that on the real ballot so I included it in the poll options. Tongue)
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2014, 05:33:41 PM »

No/Yes.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2014, 05:34:01 PM »

No/Yes (D) and lol @ the "muh 2nd amendment" wording in the first initiative.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2014, 05:39:57 PM »

Yes/No.

No/Yes (D) and lol @ the "muh 2nd amendment" wording in the first initiative.
It doesn't even mention the 2nd Amendment.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2014, 05:43:06 PM »

What happens if both pass?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2014, 05:54:06 PM »

Voted yes/yes, because the prevention of gun seizures is important even if the law would be rendered moot.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2014, 08:30:26 PM »

No/Yes (D) and lol @ the "muh 2nd amendment" wording in the first initiative.

It doesn't even mention the 2nd Amendment.

Did I say it did? No. It sounds like something someone who would say "muh 2nd amendment" would also say.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2014, 09:17:55 PM »

No/No

There should be background checks beyond what is currently at the Federal level, but 594 casts too wide a net as to what counts as a "transfer" of a weapon.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2014, 02:06:26 AM »

I voted No/Yes on my ballot. 591 in paranoid fuel while 594 levels the playing field on gun purchases. If we're going to have background checks on gun purchases, it doesn't make any sense to have them on only some types of sales and not others.
Logged
checkers
Not Great Bob
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 270
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2014, 02:53:48 AM »

No/Yes.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2014, 12:17:50 PM »

No/No

591 would be tempting if it didn't implement stronger background checks than are currently required by federal law. That said, I'm not an absolutist in opposing background checks (I would support banning ownership of firearms by known members of hate groups) but in the present-day context in which that debate is going on, I'm solidly against more stringent requirements for purchasing a firearm.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2014, 12:25:13 PM »

No/Yes

I appreciate the libertarian stance on firearm issues, but given the problems we have with organized/gang crime, and the unwillingness of state enforcement and federal regulators to deal with it seriously, I cannot vote for anti-seizure laws in good conscience.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2014, 02:08:32 PM »

No/No

591 would be tempting if it didn't implement stronger background checks than are currently required by federal law.
It doesn't. It bans implementation of stronger background checks.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2014, 02:14:43 PM »

Yes/No
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2014, 01:12:48 AM »

Yes/Yes (D)

To make it harder to confiscate weapons without due process but also for background checks. Idk how this would work out legally, but that's how I would vote.
Logged
New_Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2014, 07:32:24 PM »
« Edited: October 25, 2014, 07:35:26 PM by Branden Cordeiro »

Yes/Yes (R)

I'm in support of limiting the abilty to confiscate personal property (weapon) without due process, and implementing increased background checks, which is why I'd vote Yes/Yes.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2014, 10:32:31 PM »

No/No

591 would be tempting if it didn't implement stronger background checks than are currently required by federal law.
It doesn't. It bans implementation of stronger background checks.

Oh, the wording in the OP was kind of confusing. In that case then, I would probably vote Yes/No
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2014, 10:42:41 PM »

No/Yes (D)
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2014, 11:42:08 PM »

No/No

591 would be tempting if it didn't implement stronger background checks than are currently required by federal law.
It doesn't. It bans implementation of stronger background checks.

Oh, the wording in the OP was kind of confusing. In that case then, I would probably vote Yes/No

My Apologies. I took the wording directly from Ballotpedia. Tongue
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2014, 01:42:19 PM »

I'm looking at the official results and apparently my county (Spokane) voted in favor of both initiatives Weird...
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2014, 01:59:20 PM »

Yes/No (R).

While I oppose most forms of gun control, I believe that background checks are one of the best way to protect gun rights because it helps ensure people who use them are obeying the law.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 15 queries.