Thursday, December 25, 2014

Colion Noir: How I-594 Will Destroy Itself



I wonder if Colion has been reading the comments of our own TS. The video is almost a word-for-word rehashing of his bizarre observations of the new law.

Here's my favorite: "They would all have to go through an arduous process of getting a background check and incur transfer fees for all the guns," said in all seriousness as if that really were an insurmountable obstacle.

Where Colion departs from the message of TS is at the very end of the video. TS never resorts to those stupid impotent threats that some of the more insecure gun-rights nuts like so much.

One thing I agree with wholeheartedly is the watching and waiting idea. I predict that before we have loads of people thrown in the slammer for innocuous technical offenses we'll see a more than usual drop in crime in Washington State.


21 comments:

  1. LOL!!!!!!

    You don't even know the origin of the "ghost gun" comment, do you?

    Probably haven't read I-594 either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, my favorite Neanderthal comes out of hiding. You're the first fruit of my now slimmer trimmer blog policy. Welcome.

      Tell me all about the "ghost gun" comment. If I knew it, I forgot.

      Delete
  2. You're a big boy Mikeb, just go to youtube and search ghost gun. Be sure and watch the whole video and listen to the absolute nonsense coming out of his mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's Christmas, and I'm feeling generous. I'll help poor Mikeb out here.

      Rabidly, virulently anti-gun (thus anti-liberty, thus anti-human) California State Senatorv Kevin de León proudly illustrates his crippling idiocy (and shitty grammar) in this video (you'll want to turn the annoying annotations off), as he introduced his bill intended to preserve the crumbling existence of "gun control" in the face of technology allowing people to produce guns at home. "Ghost gun" is his term both for guns that are produced at home, and thus that the state doesn't know about, and guns made out of plastic, that thus cannot be discovered by metal detectors.

      What I love is Cody Wilson's (of 3-d printed guns fame) new CNC mill, designed to be optimized for gun making, that he calls the "Ghost Gunner," to "honor" this idiot.

      Delete
    2. I like it. Ghost guns and ghost gunners. I think it has legs.

      Delete
  3. The question is what will be don't to remove the extremely stupid parts of the law, if they can be removed. I would hope that laws passed by the referendum process can be modified legislatively. Though I imagine those who lobbied so hard to get the thing passed will object to every change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I predict that before we have loads of people thrown in the slammer for innocuous technical offenses . . .

    So it's not a problem until "loads of people" are victims of outrageous injustice? One such victim is infinitely too many.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe, just maybe, the reason two different people could come up with the same complains about the law is because we both read the law- something which I am still under the impression that you haven't done. Your rebuttals are limited to "nonsense", "bizarre", and "nuh-uh". It's not like you ever cite text that refutes what we say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't deny what you say about the law, I only deny your ridiculous predictions.

      Delete
    2. What predictions are those, Mike? The only prediction I made that I can think of off the top of my head is here where I predicted “99.9something% of the new crimes from this bill will go unpunished”:

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/one-mans-experience-with-washingtons.html#comment-form

      So are you saying some significantly higher percentage of people will be prosecuted? Or was it “ridiculous“ of me to suggest such a large prosecution rate, and it would have been far for reasonable of me if I said “99.99something%”, because that’s the difference between being reasonable and ridiculous? I can’t figure you out sometimes.

      Delete
    3. And what prediction are you making regarding enforcement of the transfer crimes? Are you predicting that there will never be a BS arrest for the crimes that Colion and I describe? Where does that leave Washington gun owners? Should they follow these BS prohibitions or not?

      Delete
    4. TS, you predicted that people will go to jail for innocuous offenses. I say they won't.

      Washington gun owners should follow the law, yes.

      Delete
    5. No, I said it's now a crime. There will be millions of them, so no they're not all going to jail. It doesn't change that the law allows them to go to jail. In fact, I specifically called out that a supermajority of these criminals will be "hidden criminals".

      What prediction are you making? That none of them will be prosecuted?

      Delete
    6. MikeB: "Washington gun owners should follow the law, yes."

      Ok, so then law abiding Washington gun owners rightfully should "whine" about this law because they have to follow it to remain law abiding. And I think you agree that some of these prohibitions are absurd, so why do you do off into your condescending proclamations that we're being "crybabies". Can't you ever just say, "yeah, you know what, you guys should oppose that"?

      Delete
    7. "There will be millions of them"

      Get real, man. There will not be millions of them. Most lawful gun owners obey the laws even if they don't like them.

      Delete
    8. "why do you do off into your condescending proclamations that we're being "crybabies"."

      I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

      Delete
    9. Most gun owners won't know they are committing these crimes unless they are passionately tied to the gun rights community or read the law. These are common activities, and the media never mentioned that they are now unlawful.

      Delete
    10. As ssgmarkcr says once in a while, time will tell. I have serious doubts that enough innocent gun owners will be thrown in jail to reverse the public opinion that was responsible for this law going into effect.

      Delete
    11. We’re probably in agreement here. I don’t think the police will enforce this enough for there to be public outcry outside of the gun owning community. As I said several times, I never predicted there would be mass arrests over this, as you keep wanting to claim I am saying. This does not make it acceptable to pass bad law, especially when the promoters of the law are dishonest about its content. And as you said, most gun owners are law abiding, and provided they are aware of the changes, now have to live under these ridiculous restrictions whether there are mass arrests or not. You still can’t even so much as have a friend help you clean a gun under this law. This has an everyday effect on the culture. Of course, the next step for your movement is to pass the same law in other states, so you guys don’t even want to draw attention to the worst pieces of the law. That’s why it is so important for us to speak up and to be vocal about what you are doing.

      Delete
  6. Well, it seems the court challenges to the law is starting.

    "The Second Amendment Foundation and other gun rights advocates have set their sights on Washington state’s I-594, having filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging portions of the recently-passed gun sale background check law.
    “We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the foundation, said in a statement. “Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington.”
    The background check measure requires all gun transfers be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under the law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states, Gottlieb said. The gun rights advocate also takes issue with the provision of the law that prohibits the non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms in the state."

    http://www.guns.com/2014/12/31/saf-sues-over-washington-background-check-law/

    This suit winning would take the politicians off the hook when it comes to having to deal with the dumber portions of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, cant remember if I included the cite,

    http://www.guns.com/2014/12/31/saf-sues-over-washington-background-check-law/

    ReplyDelete