Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $17,066
19%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 19% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by jameslalor

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Israel Police say Jewish settlers stone US consular officials during West Bank visit

    01/08/2015 5:19:37 AM PST · 55 of 57
    jameslalor to Yehuda

    “Have a source showing these Jews stoned ambulances on the Sabbat? You don’t know wth you are whining about. Get your your brain unwashed before your jihadi pals get bored with your help.”

    Sabbath is the English word you’re looking for, or Shabbat/Shabbos if you’re aiming for a more phonetic representation of Hebrew or Yiddish respectively, not Sabbat. You should be careful with your insults, when you don’t know what you’re whining about.

    Just an FYI, From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

    Definition of SABBAT
    1
    : witches’ sabbath
    2
    : any of eight neo-pagan religious festivals commemorating phases of the changing seasons

    As for citations, there are numerous. How about Hareetz, Times of Israel, Associated Press and the like?

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/hundreds-of-jews-hurl-rocks-at-cars-in-jerusalem-1.466873

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/secular-activists-police-ignoring-ultra-orthodox-attacks-on-sabbath-traffic-in-jerusalem-1.372493

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/unmodest-women-gets-stoned-in-beit-shemesh/

    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Ultra-Orthodox-Jews-Protest-Sabbath-Traffic/id-85915c14d42b9e421efd26fdef971998

    “Each time a car passed by, even if it had a sticker saying ‘in hospital service,’ they tossed rocks at it...”

    Now, even the strictest accepted interpretations of Rabbinical law accept that Sabbath restrictions do not apply in cases of life-threatening emergencies, and that ambulances and other essential emergency vehicles should be allowed to function to an extent during the Sabbath and during other holy days, however many of the ultra-orthodox Haredi communities in Israel have been clashing with other Israelis over the issue of Sabbath traffic regardless, and in many instances haven’t bothered to exercise that level of basic distinction.

    Yes Virginia, there are some ultra-orthodox nutballs that have been known to stone ambulances for having the gall to be out on a holy day, and yes it’s a major source of friction between normal, sane Israelis and some of the fringe elements in Israel. These are also often some of the same ultra-orthodox nutballs that like to set up squatter communities on other people’s land.

    Now, kindly take your ignorance and baseless condescension elsewhere... well, at least until you figure out the difference between a sabbat and the Sabbath. Dissembling, spreading ignorance about very real sources of conflict between Israelis and between Israel and her neighbors, and outright lying does NOTHING but further exacerbate the bloodshed and destruction in the Middle East, so I’d ask you in your words to get your “brain unwashed” before you bother lecturing people about topics you’re uninformed about.

  • Israel Police say Jewish settlers stone US consular officials during West Bank visit

    01/03/2015 4:17:31 PM PST · 21 of 57
    jameslalor to Dave346

    “Even if one believes the denial that US forces drew their weapons (and I don’t), they still aren’t denying the fact that US forces and Palis went into Jewish territory without coordinating with the government.”

    Have you considered, you know, lying less? It might help your case. Just a friendly suggestion.

    Note the above-mentioned story: “American consular officials Friday during a visit the officials made to the West Bank...”

    That iss area under the legal and administrative control of the “Palis” as you put it; regardless of how one views the legitimacy of post-1967 borders or what you think of standing international agreements between the parties, trying to make it sound like the U.S. and various “Palis” were screaming around inside Israeli territory without permission is an outrageous lie. That’s the kind of lie apt to make one look like a fool, or a tool.

    Further, the consular officials were invited by the legal authority of that territory to observe an area of international contention and hear the other side of the story, and like reasonable third parties the consulate officials took the diplomatic route and heard the locals out... until some other locals got pissy and started throwing rocks. Then, according to Israeli police (as opposed to the dickheads throwing rocks) the Americans scrupulously avoided conflict and let themselves get chased off.

    There’s a settlement nearby, Adi Ad. But nearby isn’t “IN”. As a comparison, Juarez is situated nearby El Paso, but it certainly ain’t Texas. If some two-bit officials were walking around El Paso and suffered a stoning from some folks from Juarez, you wouldn’t claim that the politicos had invaded Mexico now would you?

    Further, these are the same nutballs that like to throw rocks at ambulances, just for having the gall to be out on the roads saving lives during sabbath days. Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on crazy, and some of the weirdos out in the settlements really give mainstream Israelis the creeps.

    Now, rather than bothering to touch on any of the very real details of the political, social, and diplomatic issues involving the West Bank at large, or the settlements in particular, or the conflicts between the religious fanatics from both the Jewish settlements and the Palestinian territory, you just bluff and bluster and claim that our diplomats invaded Israel and waved guns at people. Do you have no shame? Or just no brain?

  • [Supreme] Court: Traffic stop OK despite mistake of law (Roberts v. Fourth Amendment 8-1)

    12/16/2014 9:12:44 AM PST · 58 of 97
    jameslalor to discostu

    “Since the courts allow DUI checkpoints it’s already established that they don’t need a valid reason for a traffic stop.”

    Wrong. You’re confusing your misunderstanding for law.

    RS is still required for virtually all stops. A single limited exception, under certain circumstances, does not mean that there’s no need in all the other cases of traffic stops.

  • [Supreme] Court: Traffic stop OK despite mistake of law (Roberts v. Fourth Amendment 8-1)

    12/16/2014 8:41:55 AM PST · 46 of 97
    jameslalor to discostu

    Read my post above yours, consent is immaterial to this case. The reason for the search, and consent to said search, was immaterial. The court was looking at the legality of the stop.

  • [Supreme] Court: Traffic stop OK despite mistake of law (Roberts v. Fourth Amendment 8-1)

    12/16/2014 8:24:52 AM PST · 39 of 97
    jameslalor to piytar; KarlInOhio; Sacajaweau

    Consensual is NOT the keyword in this case; reasonable suspicion is. Consent has absolutely nothing to do with this ruling, the court was not deciding whether the officer could lawfully search, where the heck do you get such an idea from? The court was deciding whether the officer could lawfully stop the person and ask to search in the first place.

    Consent to search may overcome the need for probable cause prior to a search, but it does NOT overcome the need for reasonable suspicion to approach a person, which was the focus of this case.

    The court was considering whether or not an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law may pass for the reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. You see, under existing precedent and principle it’s generally unlawful for police to, say for example, go to every doorstep in the city and ask the residents for consent to search or pull over every car in the city with no reason and ask the drivers to submit to “voluntary” searches.

    In order to get to the point where consent for a search comes in to play, officers need to be able to articulate a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. That is what is needed in order to pull over your car, not consent; consent is so entirely immaterial to this case that it’s not funny.

  • Americans think the unemployment rate is 32 percent

    11/16/2014 10:43:58 PM PST · 48 of 49
    jameslalor to 2ndDivisionVet

    That’s actually a pretty accurate “gut-reflection” of reality, despite the fact that the article was written chiefly to mock the intelligence of the American public and lecture them about what “real” unemployment statistics are.

    The fact of the matter is the current BLS U3 and U6 figures are farcical — in no way, shape or form do these highly selective and misleading yardsticks measure actual unemployment. In prior decades, before rules changes to how such figures are calculated and prior to the intentional redefinition of what constitutes “unemployed”, the unemployment figures put out by the BLS much more closely matched the realities of unemployment experienced by the American public.

    Case in point, back in 1994 for the BLS defined long-term discouraged job-seekers out of the unemployment figures. Been looking for a job for too many months? Guess what?! You’re no longer unemployed! Isn’t that grand?

    If we actually calculated unemployment figures as we did during the Carter administration, the current unemployment figures would be well above 20%.

    But, there was too much incentive to politicize the process of collecting and reporting economic data. If you’re a politician, why worry about actually doing something difficult like ensuring that your cockamamie hair-brained populist schemes to get votes DON’T end up destroying the economy? It’s a hell of a lot easier to have your appointees in the BLS fudge the rules a bit to define-away more than half of inflation and unemployment, and get your sycophants in the press to lecture the public about how STUPID they must be to think unemployment and inflation are high.

  • Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it 'works for everyone'

    11/10/2014 2:04:29 PM PST · 21 of 40
    jameslalor to upchuck

    Lack of competition is not what is hurting internet access in this country, regulatory pseudo-monopolies are the problem.

    Going back to a system of so-called “natural monopolies” for broadband would make the situation a hundred times worse... unless you’re the CEO of Time-Warner.

    This is simply crony capitalism at its best. Under this hair-brained idea, Obama’s furiously fellating friends over at the major media corporations would gain access to local monopolies, instead of having to compete with cable broadband providers, DSL providers, and wireless providers for lower rates and better speeds, your government would award an internet service provider monopoly to ONE provider in a given area — resulting in even higher prices, even lower quality of service, and enshrining Obama’s corporate sycophants in the media at the helm of monopolistic ISP control.

  • Lena Dunham threatens multi-million dollar lawsuit against website

    11/05/2014 3:36:43 PM PST · 51 of 57
    jameslalor to CorporateStepsister

    Annnd the Daily Mail makes sure to put all of their weasel words and deflections in the headlines and first couple of paragraphs, and omit MANY of the details from the below-the-fold drivel. The media sure does love defending child molestation.

    If you actually read down you’ll find that these aren’t “accusations”, or a single episode of “innocent childhood curiosity”.

    The real story is that a perverted, self-absorbed, narcissistic and nihilistic leftist dweeb thought it would be A-OK if she wrote an autobiography that included descriptions of her repeated sexual advances towards her younger sister. Because we all know lovingly written accounts of incest and child molestation sell books, right?

    These aren’t accusations, despite what the writers and editors over at that news organization would like you to believe — they’re admissions, not accusations. Dunham herself admitted to them and described them in detail. Dunham is threatening to sue people simply for quoting the filth she herself wrote and published.

    This was not a single incident of “innocent childhood curiosity”, despite how much propaganda spin is being thrown on this, and despite all the furious attempts to reframe the details into something less horrifying. Dunham’s book describes numerous incidents over a period of time — if I recall correctly all of the excerpted passages she describes masturbating next to her sister in their shared bed, describes poking around her sister’s genitals, describes bribing her sister with candy for physical contact, offering other bribes so that her little sister would “relax on me” as Dunham says, and describes using fear and sorrow to try to force her younger sister to seek her protection and physical comfort. In Dunham’s own words, anything a sexual predator might do.

    That’s pretty awful, but what’s even worse is we’re seeing the left close ranks around Dunham. We’re seeing news organizations distorting and apologizing for her. Perverts on the left are taking this opportunity to complain about “heteronormativity”, complaining about how our society has the gall to deem some kinds of perversion “harmful”, complaining about how society “police(s) the sexuality of young women”.

    What we’re seeing here ladies and gentlemen is a small skirmish in the left’s new front of the culture war: the normalization and advancement of pedophilia and child molestation. You’re going to be seeing a lot of this white-washing and hand-wringing over the next few years.

    You’re going to see the media trying to re-image and blur the details surrounding age of consent, and consensual activity. Expect to read and see more furiously publicized stories of teacher-student relations, and expect the media to descend like flies on any presentable young 16-and-18 year old couple that might conceivably be violating age of consent laws. At the same time, expect them to start censoring the details of truly awful child abuse stories in order to prevent real outrage from building, while trumping up fake controversies about less clear-cut examples of child abuse or abuse of authority. Desensitization and distortion will be essential tools for the left.

    You’re going to see liberals taking up a new-found interest in history, as they start reminding you ceaselessly about the perversions of the Romans, the Greeks, and any other historical civilization they can find examples of — also expect to hear them start calling your aversion to pedophilia “racism” and “islamaphobia”, like it’s really some kind of veiled attempt to discriminate against minorities instead of the desire to protect our children. They’ll point to disproportionate pedophilia rates among certain minority demographics, and will try to imply that the only reason you’re against pedophilia is the color of those pedophiles. They’ll point to “cultural traditions” of child exploitation and molestation among Asian and Middle-Eastern cultures and try to paint your disgust of pedophilia as racist hatred of other races, cultures, and faiths. Expect them to lie about the traditional nature of marriage in western civilization; they’ll act like the Hajnal Line doesn’t exist, and they’ll claim that your ancestors and the builders of your civilization married the moment they hit puberty. Expect to hear blasphemy about Jesus’ conception as well, as leftists try to paint God as a pedophile. Character assassination of critics, vilification of opposing views, and denigration of moral beliefs will be the rule of the day.

    Expect to read stories about the “sufferings” of pedophiles. The media will try desperately to paint those monsters as sympathetic characters. Expect them to weasel out as much of the English language as they can to defend and distort. They’ll try to find examples of people falsely accused of child molestation, and will parade these people around like a P.T. Barnum act in order to make it seem like we’re “too harsh, too unreasonable, too emotionally charged.” They’ll also use examples of, say, pairs of late teen and early 20-somethings that faced some minor slap-on-the-wrist legal penalty and a bit of social condescension for an age of consent or position of authority violations, and make it seem like the American public is lynching people for “normal sexual attraction”. The left has to short-circuit the deeply held, entirely natural moral impulse to protect the innocent and the vulnerable; they have to flip the roles however they can if they want to march their perversions further into your living room.

    You’ll see lots of insanely irrational appeals to “science”. The left LOVES to distort what scientific method and rational inquiry is about, they’d rather have a pretty altar to pray at than bother with painful objectivity and the drudgery of reality. They’ll have their high priests in the media and the social sciences come in and spout insane bullshit on the TV, then they’ll make up crap about a “consensus”. A handful of crusading psychologists will pass off some perversion apologetics claiming that pedophiles are really just “normal people”, a couple of crusading social science nitwits will concoct some cockamamie theories about how pedophilia does no harm to society, or maybe they’ll go so far as to claim that it helps somehow. I shudder to think that some day soon I might her one of the freaks on the left claiming that it would just be wonderful if “responsible adults” were to “introduce” children to sexual activity.

    On that note, expect childhood sexual education to come earlier, and be more lurid. The goal not being to educate, or encourage responsible behavior, but the goal being to shape impressionable minds, as well as drive a cultural and social wedge between children and their parents. The more the leftists can shape the ideals of your children to be radically different from your ideals, the more power they have over the next generation.

    Expect the left to try to reframe pedophilia and child molestation as civil rights issues. It sounds utterly insane and absurd, but then a decade ago you probably would have said the same about gay marriage. The libertines on the left don’t want any restrictions upon their licentiousness, and will flock like moths to the flame around “sexual freedom”. Expect the media and the left to only ever get outraged about child molestation in the case of a white, male, heterosexual molester — they’ll treat these as run-of-the-mill rape cases, and will admonish us to “teach men not to rape” while bemoaning western white patriarchy, and while they’re doing that they’ll applaud all other forms of molestation as some kind of sacred “sexual exploration”.

    Understand that it’s not just about this one perversion with the left. It’s never just the one issue. Many of these social crusaders consider themselves a people apart from you, different in character, morals, appearance and drive. They hate you, they hate everything about you. They hate your values and your ideals. They hate your good works, they hate your faith, they hate the morals that you’ve used to build the greatest civilization ever seen, they hate your successes and your wholesomeness. They hate your clean homes and stable communities. Many of them also hate themselves, and hate being reminded of how broken they are by the sight of normal, decent, wholesome things. Many of them even hate your race, and either apologize to their compatriots for being a part of it or whisper of genocide. Any tool they can use to bring down western civilization, any cause that can be used to stick a thumb in the eye of middle-America, any idea that can dispel the restrictions that good morality places upon human behavior, any of these things the left will champion. If they can wallow in their own filth and perversion while undermining your wholesome civilization, then they’ll be even happier.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:55:31 PM PST · 20 of 30
    jameslalor to moehoward

    “Most everyone I know voted for it. And I have no doubt some judge will throw it out if if passes.”

    Everyone I know voted for it as well, though a few were initially confused by the people urging a no vote; once they actually read the law though they all saw through the shoddy reasoning of the no-crowd.

    Sadly I think you’re right about the activist judge bit. You never know though, sometimes gun rights stick with other rational conservative issues don’t. Hell, judges have started forcing states to issue concealed carry permits, so there’s some glimmer of hope.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:49:03 PM PST · 18 of 30
    jameslalor to WhiskeyX

    “...I591 would need to be repealed to withdraw its permission for the State of Washington to conduct background checks for the Federal Government...”

    WRONG! Stop lying!

    The initiative would stop the state from conducting background checks, unless required by federal law. That doesn’t say that the state MUST follow federal law, that’s absurd, the law says that the state can’t conduct background checks... unless required.

    “Prevent unless required to” DOES NOT MEAN “you are required to”. Prevent is the operative clause, the state is prevented from adopting a background check system harsher than federal law.

    Those are very different things. So stop lying.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:45:22 PM PST · 17 of 30
    jameslalor to WhiskeyX

    “If you didn’t want the state law enforcement agencies to adopt background checks, then why do you specifically authorize them to do so on behalf of the Federal Government?”

    Please stop lying.

    Nothing in 591 prevents the state, or voters, from choosing to violate federal laws. The wording simply ensures that initiative 591 doesn’t do so, as you are still required by federal law to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer (or presenting your concealed carry permit as proof of having completed a background check).

    Nothing in 591 prevents voters from pulling a marijuana-gambit on gun rights, like we did with our state level marijuana stores.

    Nothing in 591 forces our congressmen or senators to support federal gun control, or harsher background checks.

    The wording of the law simply ensures that voters, by voting yes on 591, are merely voting to keep the state from adopting harsher background checks.

    Arguing against 591 because it doesn’t go so far as to violate federal law, like our marijuana sales, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    591 protects gun rights, period.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:39:22 PM PST · 14 of 30
    jameslalor to steve86

    “Halfwit...two-brain cells...amazingly stupid “

    Because anyone who could believe the crazy crap WhiskeyX is spouting is precisely that.

    Do you understand what state-level preemption is? In regards to gun laws?

    Under our system you are subject to the laws of your local government, your state government, and the federal government. The laws of your municipality or county do not supersede and invalidate the laws of your state, or the federal government. Likewise, the laws of your state to not supersede and invalidate the laws of the federal government.

    However, your state, or your local government, can adopt laws harsher than those of the next highest level of government; and this is dangerous to liberty. The result of that is things like New York’s Sullivan Act, D.C.’s various gun bans, and the like.

    Gun rights advocates for decades have been pushing for preemption laws that prevent your local or state governments from adopting gun laws harsher than federal law.

    State level preemption prevents, for example, Seattle from not recognizing your concealed carry permit, or from banning gun ownership within city limits.

    Initiative 591 is simply another type of preemption. It doesn’t make it easier to adopt harsher federal laws, that’s absurd. It simply makes it impossible for lower levels of government to one-up the gun grabbers in Congress.

    Having state-level preemption does not mean that you can’t roll back your local, state, or even federal gun laws. Passing a law telling the state that they can’t pass harsher gun laws than those imposed by the federal government doesn’t magically grant the federal government MORE authority to pass harsh gun laws.

    Don’t listen to the gun-grabbers that want you to vote no on 591. Exercise SOME basic civic understanding and SOME rational thought.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:25:08 PM PST · 11 of 30
    jameslalor to WhiskeyX

    “Approval of I591 automatically removes the potential obstacle of Washington State voters and/or legislature approving legislative measures to nullify a future Federal background check law...”

    It does no such thing. How could it? Absolutely nothing in the wording says anything about forcing the state to follow new federal laws, the wording simply states that it’s unlawful for the state to adopt background checks unless required to by federal law.

    Nothing in the initiative would force our congressmen or senators to vote in favor of national background checks. Nothing in the initiative would prevent a voter initiative that sought to invalidate federal law.

    You’re making crap up. 591 protects gun rights, period. It doesn’t make it easier to pass federal gun control, period. Nothing in 591 prevents voters from trying a marijuana gambit around federal gun laws.

    Stop lying!

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 10:11:05 PM PST · 7 of 30
    jameslalor to steve86

    “I will vote no on both.”

    Please stop a moment and think.

    Initiative 591 protects gun rights, period. It would prevent the state from adopting harsher background checks, period.

    There is nothing in the initiative that makes it easier to impose federal gun control on this state or its residents. If Congress manages to pass further gun control, it will affect you whether 591 passes or not, so it’s downright stupid to use that as an excuse to vote no on 591.

    There is nothing in the initiative that would prevent Washington voters from approving an initiative in the future that utterly violates federal law, like opening up gun-law free gun stores to complement our marijuana stores.

    The national standard clause simply ensures that the initiative does not violate federal law regarding background checks.

    Anyone arguing that this is a loophole, or a backdoor, is either a gun-grabber in disguise or someone so amazingly stupid that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 9:57:01 PM PST · 6 of 30
    jameslalor to WhiskeyX

    “...help the Federal Government institute more restrictive background checks...”

    Stop lying. Please. 591 would do no such thing, and no person with two-braincells to rub together could think otherwise.

  • I-591: Vote Yes On A Common Sense Gun Initiative

    11/03/2014 9:55:19 PM PST · 5 of 30
    jameslalor to WhiskeyX

    Please stop spreading stupid misinformation.

    The national standard clause of the initiative is there simply to ensure that the initiative does not violate federal law should the initiative pass. Current federal laws still apply in regards to background checks, and always will. Such wording merely ensures that lawful gun sales can continue in the state of Washington, as we are all required right now by federal law to conduct background checks under some circumstances.

    If Congress manages to pass legislation requiring additional background checks, then they don’t need to consult the voters in our state to do so.

    Initiative 591 would simply prevent the state of Washington from adopting harsher background checks than what is required by federal law.

    Either you’re a halfwit, or you’re intentionally spreading misinformation in order to torpedo gun rights.

  • Lena Dunham Cancels Appearances Amid Molestation Accusations

    11/03/2014 4:15:15 PM PST · 22 of 89
    jameslalor to Third Person

    It would appear that ABC is flag-carrying for child molesters now.

    The perverts and pedophile-enablers over there are using as many weasel words and soft lies as they can manage. The entire piece is a series of painfully obvious attempts to deceive, reframe, and apologize.

    It’s coming ladies and gentlemen, the next front in the culture war.

  • Civil Rights Activists Demand Probe Of Maxine Waters ‘Poverty Pimp’ Posters

    11/03/2014 2:58:19 PM PST · 23 of 61
    jameslalor to BenLurkin

    So, what’s racist about it?

    The accusation of being a “poverty pimp” is quite reasonable, and bears no racial invective. There are scum-sucking politicians of all colors that exploit their constituents, and via their policies intentionally create additional poverty and misery in order to ensure dependency upon the state. A political figure should not be immune to criticism, and it would be even worse to imply that politicians of a certain race are immune to criticism simply by virtue of their color.

    Are the screeching children on the left implying that the use of common language on the background is racist, perhaps? I’ve heard far worse in Grammy-award winning rap music, perhaps we should launch a civil rights probe into racist rap music? Or better yet, a civil rights probe into the Grammy awards?

    As far as the term itself, I recall reading a poll recently that indicated a majority of “African-Americans” self-identify by the term “Niggas” rather than the terms “Black” or “African-American”.

    Really, isn’t it more racist for stuck-up liberal social justice warriors to try to impose some white-liberal-terminology upon America’s duskier brethren? If a majority of, well, whatever white-liberals want to call them this week, if a majority of this demographic identifies themselves as “Niggas”, wouldn’t it be more racist for the self-appointed liberal thought-police to call them something else?

    I mean, after all, if white liberals feel uncomfortable calling a given people by that peoples’ name for themselves, is it really appropriate for white liberals to come up with their own pet-names for said ethnic group? Isn’t that a bit, I don’t know, racist or condescending or whatever the hell liberals are supposed to be against this week?

  • Hidden consequences of Washington State's gun background check Initiative 594

    11/03/2014 12:04:48 PM PST · 27 of 27
    jameslalor to Robwin

    I’m still at a loss as to how you could be quite that ignorant. Judging from your post, it would appear that you’re not a particularly bright individual, and that you probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

    Let’s see if I can get through that thick skull.

    You said: “Why do we want to allow a national standard change our vote?”

    Let me explain how our system of federalism works. You, as an individual, are subject to local, state, and federal law. Local laws, such as that of your municipality or county, do NOT supersede and invalidate the laws imposed upon you by your state government; nor do your state-level laws supersede and invalidate those of the federal government. Your locality, or your state, can however choose to pass laws that are stricter than the next higher levels of government; and that’s dangerous to liberty.

    For decades now, gun rights activists have been pushing for legislation that safeguards localities against regional gun laws. Thankfully, we’ve been relatively successful over the years in pushing for state-level preemption — laws designed to prevent local governments from adopting gun control laws more restrictive than state laws, as well as laws designed to prevent states from adopting gun laws stricter than federal laws.

    This is a good thing for gun rights, as for example it prevents places like Seattle and Portland from adopting gun laws stricter than those of the state laws of Washington and Oregon, respectively. Without state-level preemption of local gun laws, both Seattle and Portland would love to adopt harsh gun control — as a matter of fact they’re still trying to, but keep butting up against their states’ preemption laws.

    591 is such a preemption law. It would prevent the state from passing harsher background checks than what is required federally.

    Federal law applies, period. Federal law is passed by Congress, and is subject to constitutional limitations and constitutional review by the courts.

    As a good example, consider the National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricts (but does not ban) things like machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. You are subject to the NFA regardless of which state you live in, so if you want to legally own a suppressor, for example, you must meet the legal requirements under the NFA. However, states can adopt laws harsher than the NFA, and many have. Some states completely ban the possession of such items, rather than merely regulating them, and the state of Washington is one that has far stricter gun control than the NFA. You’re forbidden from legally purchasing machine guns in this state, even if you could comply with the requirements of the NFA.

    Here is an area where preemption would be wonderful, it would be a boon to gun rights if we passed a ballot initiative that forbade the state from adopting a ban on machine guns, unless federally required to do so. Such wording would improve gun rights in the state, not create some magical loophole that would allow the department of education to ban guns.

    You’re insane rambling about loopholes is not only wrong, impossible and irrational, it’s just effing stupid. The FDA is not going to pass a gun-buyer background check system, what you think is a loophole is simply your own dim misunderstanding. And Nancy Pelosi was NOT Miss Lube Rack, but then fact-checking seems to be something you’re abysmal at.

    The wording, which you have concocted an irrational and stupid conspiracy theory about, is not some secret attempt to institute backdoor gun control. It simply ensures that, if the initiative is passed, it doesn’t violate federal law the moment it comes into existence; such wording ensures that lawful gun sales can continue in this state if the initiative is passed. If Congress were to pass a national background check, like it already has and you’re already subject to, then it’s going to be federal law regardless of what initiative 591 says.

    The wording in this initiative doesn’t forbid the state from trying to adopt regulations that violate federal law, residents of the state can still pass a future ballot initiative that opens up machine gun stores or 100% background check free gun stores, just like the marijuana stores. It’s just wording that keeps Initiative 591 from violating CURRENT federal law that WE’RE ALREADY FOLLOWING.

    You’re just dim, that’s all. It’s ok though, lots of people are. I’d just appreciate it if you didn’t vote stupidly as well.

  • Hidden consequences of Washington State's gun background check Initiative 594

    11/01/2014 1:24:12 PM PDT · 17 of 27
    jameslalor to Robwin

    “I fear 591 will pass as a sort of compromise with the much worse 594. If it does Washingtonians will be surrendering their right to control their own gun ownership policies.”

    Dear God, you can’t really have misinterpreted that ballot initiative that badly.

    591 doesn’t surrender anything. It does not make the state somehow, magically, MORE subject to federal gun control. It doesn’t surrender any rights, it in fact safeguards them as it would prevent this Bloomberg nonsense from being passed in this state in future.

    “...unless a uniform national standard is required.” Is wording that would ONLY ensure that this law DOES NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW THE MOMENT IT IS PASSED. That wording does not in any way, shape or form imply any more requirement to follow federal law than already exists. We already follow MANDATORY federal law regarding background checks from licensed gun dealers, and without that wording the law could potentially make it VERY difficult for lawful firearm sales to continue in this state.

    As far as surrendering rights to Congress, I am also at a loss as to how anyone could believe that. As a resident of the United States, you’re subject to federal law, period. No state law can change that. Around the middle of the 19th century a few states tried, but that particular issue was bloodily settled. So, barring a new round of secession, you’ll still be subject to federal law. The wording referenced up there merely prevents the state from passing laws stricter than what you’re already subject to, which is a good thing.

    591 is pure, 100% gun rights, and I’m at a complete loss as to how anyone could be so ignorant as to misinterpret it otherwise.