but since I live in King County my vote was thrown in the trash, I'm suspicious of its approval.

spreading the meme that if you so much as let a friend hold your gun and look at it you become a criminal. That argument is equivalent to saying that when a speed limit is set at 55 mph you will be ticketed for driving 56 and have your car impounded. Gunners are like that; endlessly gullible to everything the gun lobby says.

1/2 percent? Yeah, 1/2 percent in a year with unprecedented voter suppression by Republicans.

The new strategy is to work through the states where one man one vote works. When voters get to decide gun safety wins.

Including money bombs in major media markets, paid signature collectors, paid staffers coordinating the campaign.
Massive amount of spending?
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/06/07/millions-of-dollars-flow-into-maine-ballot-initiative-campaigns/

The gun control crowd spent nearly 6x the amount of money in support of universal infringements in Maine. Bloomturd spent nearly 2 million on this particular ballot initiative compared to the NRA's 500K.

Controllers spent a total of 6 million dollars on question 3, compared to just a million in opposition.

Look it up on ballotpedia.org.

Controllers can't even pass UBCs via a deceptive ballot initiative in Maine, how embarrassing.

Obama's going to take your guns--better get right on that, only got a few weeks left!

Like I said, gunners are congenitally easily mislead.

What does your post have to do with gun controllers spending 6x more than the pro-rights side on question 3 and still suffering an embarrassing loss in Maine?

historically the gun lobby has out spent us 'controllers' 10:1 and the NRA alone spent $50 mil this year alone. So much in fact that Pierre is out begging the membership 'cause until they get more money the NRA is close to bankrupt.

I'm sure they'll be ok though 'cause there's enough gullible gunners who still think Obama's coming for their guns . . oh, wait

Funding his AstroTurf "gun safety" organizations that do nothing as far as actual gun safety.

But your original point was that the loss in Maine was due to massive NRA spending. When in fact, the NRA spent far less than the gun controllers did in Maine.

UBCs barely passed in Nevada, a far, far cry from the 90% support level that is often claimed by proponents of control.

Gun control special interests claimed that they would help Hillary win this election. They claimed that people would be coming out of the woodwork to vote for "common sense gun safety reforms".

It's high time we ditch efforts to restrict gun rights from within our party.

Ad in unprecedented voter suppression by Comey and what do you get? An election where more votes are cast (in Maine) for an obscure down ballot referendum than for President.

No Kang, you'll believe what you need to to justify your undying support for the NRA including soliciting membership.

Me, I'll move on to a fact based reality.

BTW, $50 mil is as much Bloomberg has contributed to start a nationwide movement, all spent on one election.

Now have the last word and declare victory.

I respect your posts and generally enjoy reading them. I pointed out a factual error and rather than correct the issue you decided to change the subject.

I agree with you about Comey. As far as my NRA membership goes, NRA members have a long history of supporting Democrats. I've personally supported Clinton campaign efforts for over three decades. Her loss is likely to be terrible for the firearms industry in terms of revenues and fundraising efforts in support of 2A issues. I can tell you that back in '94, the least of our concerns was the AWB. The AWB was a godsend for fundraising. Back in those days and earlier draconian gun control had bipartisan support, the industry was being choked by dozens of costly lawsuits, over half the country had "may issue" or no issue laws, localities had broad gun bans, we were eight years past the Hughes Amendment, and their was literally no relief in sight. You had guys like Bill Ruger advocating magazine capacity restrictions (for profit seeking reasons, imo). Heller was over a decade away. Bush Sr. and Clinton had decimated the import business. IT. WAS. BLEAK.

Why do I bring all that up? Because Democrats have been a big part of preserving our rights. Back in the old days over 60 Democratic reps voted against the AWB, and nine Democratic Senators voted against it. I'd like to see us finally cast aside notions of additional gun control and repeal as much of it as we can.

You have issues with that? See you had to change the subject, hard to refute the truth isn't it.

if suppressors are so useless, why is there any opposition to allowing their sale to the public?

It seems it should be a throwaway negotiating point for gun control; a chance to get something for nothing. Yet the opposition to relaxing regulations on suppressors is rock solid.

Almost like they just believe the movies

...IMHO, a suppressor is "scary looking". Need I say more?

regard to gun control:

1) The intensity of that support may be an issue. Asked 'correctly,' it may not be too difficult to get a high %% of support for lots of things, but if that support is shallow and or ill-informed, it may not mean much when the rubber meets the road.

2) Given the regional representation embedded in our system (Senate, House, Electoral College) it's a trap to get too much confidence from national polls. There may be 90% support for something, but if the bulk of that support is concentrated in CA, NY, MA, etc, then it doesn't translate into big-picture wins...