Comment on Entry: Senate Democrats Feign Ignorance of Gun Bill, authored by pudge
1. I believe Kline because of the modern Democrat Party doctrine on laws, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".

Posted by SouthernRoots at February 18, 2013 07:58 AM
2. This is just the beginning. Gun confiscation legislation is being proposed in New York, California,Minnesota, and Illinois, and has actually been introduced in Missouri. In the meantime, Homeland Security is buying up as much ammunition as the manufacturers can supply for the purpose of "training and target practice"? More likely in advance of civil unrest or economic collapse, whichever comes first.

Posted by katomar at February 18, 2013 08:04 AM
3. SouthernRoots, after eight years of introducing the same eight-page bill, you'd think Kline and Kohl-Welles would have read it by now. I mean come on, that's only one page a year they need to read.

And actually, it's really only four pages, because the first four pages are unamended portions of an existing section. So a half page a year is all we're asking here.

There's also many pages following the first eight, listing changes to crime tables, and a severability clause at the end, which due to underlining of changes and boilerplate language takes about 1 minute to scan ... or one year if you're a Democratic Senator.

Posted by pudge at February 18, 2013 08:07 AM
4. If an exterminator has to prove to government officials that his/her bug poisons are safely stored, why not an assault weapon?

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 18, 2013 10:06 AM
5. Every person who voted for Senate Bill 5737 has been caught with their pants/panties down.

What a crock of BS. The home invasion language was no mistake. The wording is not the output of some zealot staff member. Why? Because self-respecting staffers know that the wording violates several provisions of both the state and federal constitutions.

The chief zealots are senators Kline and Murray. All who voted for the bill know or should know that it is unconstitutional and gregarious overreaching.

Posted by Paddy at February 18, 2013 10:12 AM
6. re Paddy -- "...unconstitutional and gregarious overreaching."

Well, their pleasantries should count for something, no?

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 18, 2013 10:32 AM
7. Angelus, this bill is not about a pest terminator using rifles in a customer's home.

Posted by pudge at February 18, 2013 10:54 AM
8. Correct. It's about properly storing potentially deadly objects -- one a poison the other an assault weapon.

So, it's not an apples to oranges comparison that I'm making. I'd appreciate it if you could dispense with these ridiculous obfuscations that you seem so fond of.

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 18, 2013 11:19 AM
9. Odd that we get nothing but cricket chirps from the resident fringe-leftists infesting us here.

These bills... all of them... are DOA in the Senate.

The idea that these scum believe... for one moment... that the people would allow this usurpation to take place just goes to show how out of touch with reality they are... and that their useful tools are mesmerized into voting for these slime by the "bright, shiny object" politics they play.

Posted by K.J. Hinton at February 18, 2013 12:23 PM
10. Novus: It is indeed apples and oranges. The EPA enforces regulations on how pesticides are stored. There are no laws on the books so far covering how private gun owners store their guns. So the two are not equal, not even close. We would hope for common sense to be used in gun storage, which most law-abiding, legal gun owners employ. However, it's highly doubtful that illegal gun owners, i.e., criminals care at all how they store their guns, much less about any laws pertaining to gun ownership. So how are you going to track criminals and gangsters who buy guns out of the back of a car, and how they store said guns?

Posted by Katomar at February 18, 2013 12:25 PM
11. Hinton @9
That is because Pudge has banned most of them and removes their posts. My guess is you will see less and less dissent on Pudge's posts. They will become one sided monologues.

Posted by just saying at February 18, 2013 12:44 PM
12. Angelus: It's about properly storing potentially deadly objects

False. Exterminators don't have inspections because they store potentially deadly objects, but because they are engaged in commerce using those objects for other people on their property and among people and animals.

As a private person, I am not required to have inspections if I have those same chemicals. Similarly, my kitchen and swimming pool are not subject to government inspections either, whereas kitchens and swimming pools for the general public are.

If this were about inspections for gun dealers, or security firms, etc., you might have a point. But your point was using an example where the government power is explicitly tied to regulation of an enterprise for the general public, not personal use, so you ... don't actually have a point.


I'd appreciate it if you could dispense with these ridiculous obfuscations that you seem so fond of.

False. You threw out a completely nonsensical analogy, and I simply pointed out that fact.


"just saying": I've banned people who agree with me, too (including at least one libertarian, and a few conservatives). I ban anyone who demonstrates a pattern of abuse, including lying and other activities which get in the way of reasonable discussion (such as the incessant use of red herrings, etc.).

Saying I've banned "the resident fringe-leftists infesting us here" only means that I've found them to be abusive.

Posted by pudge at February 18, 2013 01:07 PM
13. So, it's not an apples to oranges comparison that I'm making. I'd appreciate it if you could dispense with these ridiculous obfuscations that you seem so fond of.
Posted by Angelus Novus at February 18, 2013 11:19 AM

How thoughtfully petty of you to throw out those salient (in your mind) ad-hominems that would make your fellow low information voter statists cheer and also avoid intelligent discussion. What ridiculous obfuscations do you mean ?

I have yet to read a coherent argument that you have tried to make. It is readily apparent that you don't care about constitutionality.

just saying - how would you govern posts that mock or insult you at every turn if you were to post ? I think it is more a case of those going out of their way to lie and corrupt the original intention of the post and it becomes a pissing match, immersed in pettiness mainly from the leftists and is a deterrent to intelligent responses. Care to answer that ?

Everyone who posts on a blog has the prerogative to ban those who purposely try to corrupt (ie. by knowingly presenting a false narrative, ad hominem attacks on the poster or not sticking to the topic) the intent of the original posts.

Posted by KDS at February 18, 2013 01:08 PM
14. Yes, you have banned others also, but that wasn't my point. My point was in response to Hinton's comment of lack of left comments on the thread. That is all I have to say, because, you already got testy with me in your response. Good luck with the monotone posts.

Posted by just saying at February 18, 2013 03:06 PM
15. Wow, I got "testy" with your off-topic remark?

Posted by pudge at February 18, 2013 03:07 PM
16. Apparently, Ben Shapiro agrees with this post. He's the guy who was able to calmly refute gun control freak Piers Morgan's arguments on his show a few weeks ago and enhanced his ability to look like a buffoon when discussing gun control.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Washington-tries-to-allow-police-search-homes

Posted by KDS at February 18, 2013 04:05 PM
17. Just goes to show how willingly and often these Seattle Democrats lie. And how seldom they are called to account!

Posted by JB at February 18, 2013 04:15 PM
18. Next, the Democrats plan to craft a bill that allows police into your home to inspect the speech going on inside, if you have been identified as someone who doesn't vote for them. They figure the 1st amendment is problematic, too.
How many other amendments don't like?

Posted by Princess Leia at February 18, 2013 05:01 PM
19. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT SAVING ANYONE OR CURBING VIOLENCE. THIS IS GOVERNMENT TRYING TO STEAL OUR ABILITY TO RESIST THE TYRANNY THEY WANT TO IMPOSE. HASNT ANYONE EVER HEARD OF TOTALITARIONS?

Posted by patriot9749 at February 18, 2013 06:22 PM
20. Bad Politicians write bad legislation, vote them out.

Posted by Marmstro at February 18, 2013 06:50 PM
21. Not to underestimate the media on gun control - the liberal media tries to shape your opinions: they tell you stories that they think make leftists look good and conservatives look bad, and they conceal from you the news that doesn't fit their agenda.

You can take that to the bank as you sit back and watch or tune it out.

Posted by KDS at February 18, 2013 10:24 PM
22. The wording in the bill is very important. It says that the county sheriff MAY inspect, not Shall, not must, not will. But MAY. This puts the impetus for inspection on the sheriff and only if
he wants to. This is not a mandated to inspect but merely a permission to do so. That said, how many sheriffs have the manpower or the intestinal fortitude (read: Balls) to order these illegal intrusions in to private houses? One or two of these inspections will be enough to prove that the sheriff in question is unfit to enforce the law. Further he is unfit to even live in the jurisdiction. This could prove to be a tool for the personal or political vendetta. This stupid attempt at useless, feelgood grandstanding has made us the laughingstock on the national news. Not for the attempt, but for the admission of both co-sponsors that they did not read their own bill. Can you spell RECALL?

Posted by Roger in Republic at February 18, 2013 10:41 PM
23. Roger: This is not a mandated to inspect but merely a permission to do so

Right. It puts the power to inspect everything in your home to a law enforcement officer, without a warrant.

You're probably correct that few inspections would happen. It doesn't matter. The fact that they can do it, that they can hang this over your head, that they can pretend to have justification for intruding into your home whenever they feel like it (provided they have't already done so within a year) ... it's an affront to the very nature of liberty.

And again, they read the bill. They lied. They introduced the exact same wording in 2010 and 2005.

Posted by pudge at February 18, 2013 10:45 PM
24. Pudge, how did you go from "you'd think Kline and Kohl-Welles would have read it by now" (@3) to "they read the bill" (@23)? Do you know that? Or are you lying?

Posted by lia at February 19, 2013 01:18 AM
25. Pudge, as of 2/15/2013 1:48:29 PM, this clause is no longer in the bill (SENATE BILL 5737 (Corrected Copy))

There are no separate "original bill" and "corrected bill files", just the "corrected" original bill.

The bill says it was first read on 2/13/2013, so the clause was amended after the reading.

Also, SB6396 was introduced twice in 2010; once in the regular session and once again in the 1st special session.

Someone read the 2005, 2010, and 2013 bills because, though they contain a lot of similar language, there have been changes. The 2013 bill added a threaded barrel (suppressors now outlawed) and there were changes in Table 2 about which RCW's this bill would amend.

I do find it odd that someone would put their name on a bill and not know what was know what was in it when it was introduced in the legislature. As you said, this was a short bill, are our representatives even worse about knowing what is in longer bills?

If this was an honest oversight, it still is no excuse. Our representatives should always read the final version of a bill before introduction of before their vote, how else will they find out about things that "slipped in" or weren't removed?

If they don't have the time (or desire) to read the bills before introduction or a vote, perhaps they are in the wrong job.

Posted by SouthernRoots at February 19, 2013 06:27 AM
26. This is how they planned it:

Propose something ludicrous, that is: ban the purchase of weapons that could actually do a good job of fighting an oppressive government when they finally declare they have taken away the last of our inalienable rights...

Then add onto it something even more ludicrous, that is: having cops walk through your homes when they want to...

Then apologize for the oversight of the even more ludicrous thing and tell the media and everyone that they will take that out so now everything in the bill is hunky dorry and there is no longer any reason to oppose it.

Posted by doug at February 19, 2013 06:50 AM
27. Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 24 - The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Emphasis added

This bill would create an impairment to our Constitutional right.

Posted by SouthernRoots at February 19, 2013 06:59 AM
28. lia: I was pointing out that it is unreasonable to believe that they have not read it. Read the original post: "Klein didn't make a mistake. He simply lied about it when you pointed it out."


SouthernRoots: Someone read the 2005, 2010, and 2013 bills because, though they contain a lot of similar language, there have been changes.

Exactly. And again, it's only four pages. The legislators knew what was in it. They reviewed what it said each time it was introduced. Of course they did.


doug: I don't think so. I think they just thought -- correctly -- that the only way to enforce the law was to have inspections, so therefore, they put inspections in the bill.

Posted by pudge at February 19, 2013 08:15 AM
29. I would like to propose a state Constitutional Amendment:

Whenever a Representative introduces, sponsors or votes yes on a Bill, they certify (under penalty of law) that they have read and understood the Bill.

Posted by Dishman at February 19, 2013 09:45 AM
30. #6: I wrote "egregious." Then spell checked and got, but failed to note the change to gregarious.

Posted by Paddy at February 19, 2013 10:42 AM
31. I would like to propose a state Constitutional Amendment:

Whenever a Representative introduces, sponsors or votes yes on a Bill, they certify (under penalty of law) that they have read and understood the Bill.

Posted by Dishman at February 19, 2013 09:45 AM

Do you have anyone who would sponsor such a bill ?
It would be nice and most people would like to see this occur, but you know that the political will is unlikely to be there. You forgot, they are the ruling class - not only in DC but in Olympia and the other liberally governed states.

Posted by KDS at February 19, 2013 12:20 PM
32. # 23: and not only would it be a law on the books even if rarely used by law enforcement, but it would be a precedent on which other legislation could be built on. Once such a precedent in law is established it's abuse in other areas would be a danger too.

Posted by Kevin R. at February 19, 2013 01:16 PM
33. Democrats and Gun Ignorance. Yep they go together like Siamese twins.

Posted by Leftover at February 19, 2013 01:19 PM
34. I hate to tell you this but other towns are not the only suffer's of data base fraud in regards to voter's records. I am a prime example, I got my information removed based on fraud and so did another man from Seattle (via both state SOS offices and county offices).

We are at least two cases where the fraud information is still listed in 'sound politics' data base and both of us have made repeated attempts to ask it be removed from our PII"s since in both cases it was fraudulently done/created.

Since there is evidence of these being fraud why is the website author refusing to answer emails to have the information redacted from the website? He was already informed that the State departments involved have taken this action. Refusal of this type is libelous and actionable in court. I have been advised to file an FTC complaint and I will most likely take that action unless the fraud related information is removed from my PII's (name,dob,address).

After having this experience with this website I am not sure I can see anything posted here as relevant based upon factual truth. Why would anyone put any stock into what is said here if the information cannot be trusted to have accuracy and integrity? And how can anyone here state the website has these qualities if the editor refuses to remove fraud related data when he is made aware of it's presence? He is lucky I don't sue for defamation of sorts...or subpena him with an injunction to shut down the site until the information is redacted. This comment has no party line connection fraud is fraud....

Posted by Jenny Shepard at February 19, 2013 01:53 PM
35. Jenny Shepard: your comment is off-topic, and further comments about it will not be entertained here. I have nothing to do with the database, so I can't help you. I just post here, it's not my site.

I would advise, however, that someone publishing information given to them as part of the government record is not culpable for fraudulent portions of that data. That's nonsense. Thee's no FTC complaint or lawsuit to be made here. You're just blowing smoke.

Posted by pudge at February 19, 2013 02:07 PM
36. Off topic no doubt! However, OP has a legit legal concern that should be looked into by whomever at soundpoly. If the editor of this website is made aware of erroneous information, regardless of the source they are NOT protected by law if they do not confirm for accuracy. If they continue to post after they have been informed than they are at fault as much so legally as the original source. Reference this to your law books if in doubt. Not sure if FTC can do anything for her but I am sure she was told to file a report because that is SOP when a police report of ID theft is made. You shouldn't be so quick to attempt to discredit without absolute knowledge. AT the very least her complaint she be looked into by the responsible party at soundpoly. End of subject get back to the idiot gripe sessions about who is right and who is wrong.

Posted by Bruce Johnson IT/NT Security Admin Legal Consult at February 19, 2013 03:59 PM
37. Bruce: there is no tort for "erroneous information."

Now, take it elsewhere.

Posted by pudge at February 19, 2013 04:26 PM
38. Feigning ignorance is what Democrats (and some Republicans) are good at. Why should we be surprised by this conduct by politicians in this day and age? The problem with feigning ignorance is that it works on low information voter's and the politican's know this. I'd like to see a follow up Danny Westneat column that calls out these politicians for being the liars they are, but somehow, I don't think it's in his DNA to take on his party so don't hold your breath.

Posted by Rick D. at February 19, 2013 08:53 PM
39. KDS wrote:
Do you have anyone who would sponsor such a bill ?
It would be nice and most people would like to see this occur, but you know that the political will is unlikely to be there. You forgot, they are the ruling class - not only in DC but in Olympia and the other liberally governed states.

State initiative process is probably the only way.

I'd like to add one more requirement: A copy of the Bill, with the Representative's initials on every page, submitted to the state archives prior to any submission, sponsorship or 'Yes' vote.

The additional term would create a suitable paper-trail for audit, and force Representatives to chose between at least going through the motions, and engaging in deliberate, traceable perjury.

These requirements would not be much different from what many of us already deal with professionally.

If you like the idea, pass it on.

Posted by Dishman at February 20, 2013 04:08 AM
40. According to the FBI 2011 Uniform Crime Report, a total of 323 people were murdered by all kinds of rifles in the United States. The State of Washington had 1 person murdered with a rifle and it was not an assault rifle. California led the country with 45 murders with a rifle. California still has the assault weapon ban in place today. According to the FBI UCR a total of 496 people were killed with hammers.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Vice President Joe Biden as the head of the gun control task force just said the undeniable truth, ""Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down...".

Posted by yukondave at February 20, 2013 11:25 AM
41. Pudge@28 claims that his bold-faced "they read the bill" is merely the same thing as "pointing out that it is unreasonable to believe that they have not read it".

Coming from you, pudge, this is rich. You believe that all sorts of things are "unreasonable", including the thought processes of nearly anyone who disagrees with you. And it's your right to believe that and come across as an obnoxious, arrogant, narrow-minded, inconsiderate jerk on a power-trip.

But to claim that just because something is unreasonable in your mind means it didn't happen is just wrong. You, sir, are lying.

Posted by lia at February 20, 2013 11:34 AM
42. lia: Pudge@28 claims that his bold-faced "they read the bill" is merely the same thing as "pointing out that it is unreasonable to believe that they have not read it".

False. I did not say they were the same thing. YOU claimed, incorrectly, that @3 I was ambiguous about whether or not they read it, but @23 I was straightforward. No, I have been straightforward about it the entire time, as evidenced by the original post. But in @3, I was making the point that not only have they read it, but that in addition it is unreasonable to believe otherwise: that somehow they've sponsored the same four-page bill, with slight changes, at least three times over eight years, and that they don't actually know what it says.


You believe that all sorts of things are "unreasonable"

So do you. So does everyone.


... including the thought processes of nearly anyone who disagrees with you.

You're lying. Please stop. I never think someone is unreasonable based on whether they agree with me on any issue. Ever. I think they are unreasonable only based on how they arrive at, or present, or argue, their views ... whether they agree with me or not.


And it's your right to believe that and come across as an obnoxious, arrogant, narrow-minded, inconsiderate jerk on a power-trip.

I only "come across" that way to someone who is ignorant. Shrug.

Posted by pudge at February 20, 2013 12:27 PM
43. re Pudge: "Jenny Shepard: your comment is off-topic...."

Not if the topic is dishonesty.

Since when is it off topic to discuss YOUR organization's dishonesty as well as the dishonesty you think you perceive in others?

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM
44. Since when is it off topic to discuss YOUR organization's dishonesty as well as the dishonesty you think you perceive in others?

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM

Folks, here is a bonafide conspiracy theorist and and a classic prevaricator. Suppose I ask if you can provide any documented proof of your accusation ?

Back at ya', Novus - looks like the crack in your windshield is ever expanding, dude

Posted by KDS at February 20, 2013 04:02 PM
45. KDS -- You are a rube who misunderstands everything but thinks he's on top of it.

You are one of the few commenters on this blog who would be better served if Pudge erased your comments.

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM
46. See, lia, case in point. Angelus was not discouraged or banned from posting ... until he became abusive.

Posted by pudge at February 20, 2013 05:24 PM
47. I get a charge out of it when low information trolls like Novus can't respond coherently in kind other than with targeted insults or name calling. It shows they have lost the argument - like shooting fish in a barrel.

If he was banned, it was for the good of the discussion - Bravo !

Posted by KDS at February 20, 2013 06:16 PM
48. Pudge wrote: "I was making the point that not only have they read it, but that in addition it is unreasonable to believe otherwise"

Stop before you hurt yourself with your contortions to pretend you're not lying. Your only support for claiing "they read it" is that you personally think it's unreasonable to believe otherwise. It's reasonable for you to say you think they read it or should have read it, but only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.

Posted by lia at February 21, 2013 01:25 AM
49. lia: Your only support for claiing "they read it" is that you personally think it's unreasonable to believe otherwise.

No. My actual support for it is that they introduced the same four-page bill, with minor changes, three times, and there is no reason to think that they didn't read it any of those three times.

It's so incredible to me that the left thinks that the Democrats knew what was in nearly 1,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act, but somehow these two legislators didn't read the four pages they sponsored three times?

If you have a rebuttal to the evidence, fine. But don't pretend the evidence isn't strong.


... only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.

I didn't say it is a "fact." You're the one who's lying here. I suggest you stop now.

Posted by pudge at February 21, 2013 07:41 AM
50. lia wrote:

Stop before you hurt yourself with your contortions to pretend you're not lying. Your only support for claiing "they read it" is that you personally think it's unreasonable to believe otherwise. It's reasonable for you to say you think they read it or should have read it, but only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.

Wait - so your position is that the Democrat legislators who introduced this bill not once, not twice, but 3 times - NEVER READ THE BILL?

That's your position you're arguing in favor of? And you think that's good?

Posted by Shanghai Dan at February 21, 2013 09:24 AM
51. Pudge and Dan- I have no idea if they read it. They should have read it. But I would never say "they read it".

Posted by lia at February 21, 2013 09:28 AM
52. Lia: If they didn't read it, how did they make changes to it? Or are you suggesting they allowed someone else to make changes to a bill they say they wrote and sponsored?

Posted by lia: at February 21, 2013 09:39 AM
53. lia: I would never say it is a FACT that they read it. But I will, in absence of contrary evidence, say that they read it. If they want to argue that they didn't, then they can argue against the strong evidence, and explain the events that led them to not read a merely four-page bill they introduced, with small changes, three times.

Posted by pudge at February 21, 2013 09:47 AM
54. @49 and 50,

When you confront a lefty with reason, they don't do so well. The point of Dem legislation is never to solve anything, as for example Joe Biden admits with regards to all of the current gun ban talk and the reality that no legislation will ever actually prevent another massacre. Everyone knows this. It is common sense.

But that does not stop a lefty like lia from defending the waste of legislative time and good intentions over substance that is modus operandi of all Democrats.

What would actually work, is to get more people to carry whatever form of protection they were able to use safely. If criminals and potential ne'er-do-wells knew that the little old lady next to them was probably at minimum packing pepper spray or a taser, or that many teachers in schools had CWLs, they would think twice before mugging her or starting a classroom massacre.

As it is, most people are just sitting ducks on the government dole. Which is really what fools like lia want.

Posted by Leftover at February 21, 2013 11:52 AM
55. Say, you got a nice buy real retro jordansblog.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

Posted by buy cheap jordans online with credit card at February 21, 2013 06:30 PM
56. Excellent read. I just passebuy real retro jordans

Posted by real jordans at February 21, 2013 06:32 PM
57. Make no mistake about it, folks. The "progressive" left wants to remove all guns from law abiding citizens. By their word and their actions ye shall know them. Just look at what's being proposed across the country. This is no time for pansies, people. This is the time to speak up and be heard.

I will not register any firearms. And if Alan Gottlieb and Co. supports "Universal Background Checks" which only create a database of gun owners for future confiscation, then he and his bunch of fairies can take a flying you know what.

Molon Labe.

Posted by Joe Band Member at February 23, 2013 02:43 PM