Washington voters approving I-594 to expand gun background checks

[flamin lib]

http://q13fox.com/2014/11/04/washington-voters-approving-i-594-to-expand-gun-background-checks/

"With 1.2 million votes counted, I-594 was leading 60-40% and its rival measure, I-591, which would limit gun background checks, was losing 55-45%."

This is what happens when you get the NRA owned politicians of both parties out of the way. Let the people speak.

[pscot]

1. Easily the best thing

to come out of last night.

[Oakenshield]

2. Let's hope this sets a precedent for others to follow.

Damn fine work Washington.

[jimmy the one]

3. not so funny

"With 1.2 million votes counted, I-594 was leading 60-40% and its rival measure, I-591, which would limit gun background checks, was losing 55-45%."

Funny tho, when polled specifically whether they support bg checks, 80 - 90% will say yes, but when comes to voting, repubs & right leaning indy's apparently will vote the republican rightwing position, tossing their convictions under the bus to nowhere.
Actually not so funny.

This is what happens when you get the NRA owned politicians of both parties out of the way. Let the people speak.

Sick that the republican senate voted down bg checks in 2013, yet did the electorate last week care about them defying the will of the people back then? & punish republican senate hopefuls? nope, didn't faze them a bit, a good portion of the electorate is gullible & susceptible to rightwing cretinism & fearmongering.

[GGJohn]

4. Republicans didn't have the Senate in 2013, they had the House,

but the Senate was controlled by the Dems.

[jimmy the one]

5. voted down is correct, by my reasoning

ggjohn: Republicans didn't have the Senate in 2013, they had the House, but the Senate was controlled by the Dems

Telling people things they're well aware of doesn't enhance your persona here.
I think you purposely read too much into what I said; I put it well enough, that the 'republican senate', being the republicans in the senate, voted down the bg check bill. The only way I know of to vote down something (defeat) in senate, when you have a minority, is to filibuster with at least 41 senators.
Actually that works even if republicans had indeed controlled the senate with 51, then all they needed to vote it down was at least the filibuster 41, had sufficient repubs actually supported it (cough).

how I put it: Sick that the republican senate voted down bg checks in 2013...

They voted it down, by having a filibuster proof minority of at least 41 senators. There wasn't any other way to defeat bg check bill, other than to 'vote it down', as I put it.

[GGJohn]

6. Then next time, articulate what you meant so people won't think you got it wrong.

[jimmy the one]

7. articulated ad hominems

ggjohn: Then next time, articulate what you meant so people won't think you got it wrong.

My articulation was fine & even correct; next time when there are alternative interpretations don't leap to unjust conclusions based on your bias & prejudice, just to make a juvenile ad hominem.

[GGJohn]

8. No, it wasn't.

The Senate was Dem controlled at the time, but you said it was a repub senate that voted down the bill, which wasn't true.
Regardless, it's not worth arguing over.