Another idiotic initiative in WA State to say "NO!" to, I-1639

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by mogon

Imo, it's a disingenuous con. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ate-overlords/

I see your point on this. However, I don't believe cities should be taxing sugary drinks either. So my vote is still yes on this.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by thatguy950

Yep, stupidity and ignorance seem to be winning here (recent polling shows 1639 winning).

It's a given, just look at the nuts liberals elect in Seattle? Of course they're going to vote for any horrible law that comes along, especially if it's anti 2nd amendment, the ignorant in western WA will fall for anything. They're willing to sacrifice any rights as long as they can stick their fingers in their ears and scream about "saving lives" in the face of all evidence.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

So, apparently "Thatguy950", has a post that apparently has backfired. That's OK, it doesn't mean your silly measure will fail, but wait...no...it does mean it will fail. Even fellow Eastern Washingtonians are against this one. Better luck next time.

Are you kidding? The raving liberals in this thread were ALWAYS going to vote for it, and any other anti gun law that comes along.

Did they poll "eastern Washingtonians" from Seattle going to WSU to get the idea that "eastern Washingtonians" are for it?

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by Haakon

Are you kidding? The raving liberals in this thread were ALWAYS going to vote for it, and any other anti gun law that comes along.

Did they poll "eastern Washingtonians" from Seattle going to WSU to get the idea that "eastern Washingtonians" are for it?

The only one who appears to be “raving” in this thread is you.

[rkcarguy]

Credit David C, of Northwest Citizen, for this post I'm inserting below:

"Mass shootings make the news on a regular basis - it’s hard not to look at yet another social reject violently expressing his (yes they are all men) pain and anger and murderous rage by shooting random people as a prelude to his own death. And although you are 98 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than in a mass shooting (in 2016 there were 37,461 automobile deaths and 383 mass shooting deaths), the emotional impact of a mass shooting defies logic and reason and so the cry goes up: “We have to do something!”. And since the social problems that create all these socially-alienated young men are complex and not easily analysed let alone solvable, the easy solution is to make laws to keep guns out of their hands. At least that’s the ostensible reason for them and the stated reason for I-1639. And what reasonable person would oppose reasonable regulation of gun ownership?

But, as in all things, the devil is in the details. I would urge you to read the full text of the initiative linked above - it is full of provisions that seem to be mostly an imposition on the law-abiding, but do little to keep assault weapons out of the hands of those determined to have them. The first is what it purports to regulate, which is “Semiautomatic assault rifles”. If you, like me, had a 22 rifle as a boy (I spent many happy hours plinking cans and bottles and the occasional rat at the dump), you will be surprised to learn that the authors of I-1639 consider that your 22 cal. rifle is defined as a “semiautomatic assault rifle”. And “assault rifles” are BAD BAD BAD and Scary Scary Scary. So the 22 cal. rifles from American manufacturers such as Savage , Remington , Mossberg, Marlin, and Ruger that millions of Americans learned to shoot with, if this thing passes, will only be available to people who are over 21, and apply and pay for for a permit from the Sheriff, and submit to an FBI background check, and every year thereafter have to pay to renew this permit. Nope, young hunters, your plinking rifle is just too dangerous for you, little person, because we say it’s a scary bad assault rifle.

This is just so dishonest and so exploitive of emotion over reason that this alone should disqualify I-1639.

There are other arguments against I-1639. In legal filings opposing it, B’ham local Joe WIlson makes Constitutional arguments, and asserts that the “fees” outlined in the Initiative are in fact taxes. Here’s his second filing. The NRA also filed a brief in opposition that expounds on the second and fourteenth amendment issues and also states the following: “Parts of the ballot description “are impermissibly designed to prejudice a voter in favor of the measure by omitting key information and using language designed to sway an uninformed voter””. And this is the key to why the authors of I-1639, rather than being honest and stating that the measure would apply to all semi-automatic rifles, misrepresented what they were up to by inserting the emotive and redundant “assault rifle” description.

I suppose it should not be a surprise that in the political world, political actors use emotive issues for their own ends. And that they lie and misrepresent facts in order to mislead people. But this thing is so ham-handed that it seems to me that it will benefit the right much more than the left. That (Dem) AG Ferguson has already endorsed the thing (quite improperly I think since it is his office that reviews all initiatives) leads me to believe that the Dem brain trust thinks it will be of benefit to them. I think this is laughable but we shall see.

Just consider the Canadian experience with the long gun registry, which was the Liberal government’s knee-jerk response to the mass murder of female students by Mark Lepine. It was ill-founded, costly, and ineffective, made Minister Allen Rock a political non-entity, and ultimately lost the Liberals the government to the Conservatives, who made abolishing the long gun registry a campaign issue and to their credit eliminated this costly imposition on the law-abiding.

This I-1639 will get conservative people “up in arms” (sorry about the pun) across the State - good work, Paul Allen and Nick Hanauer - your millions contributed to I-1639 might just be a boon to the Republicans. "

[thatguy950]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Yes, it is going to pass. My earlier points are it is just not liberal Western WA, there are independents and even some republicans who will be voting yes on this.

Other initiatives...

1631 Carbon Tax...likely to pass but I will vote no. Don't need higher gas and energy prices.

1643 Stops additional food taxes. This is likely to pass, and it should. I will vote yes on this.

Your points are well taken and that’s fine, and hey at least we agree on the other two, and two outta three ain’t bad

[FJhg]

Everything about that makes sense.

[xboxmas]

I'm proudly voting "No."

[xboxmas]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

I wasn’t clear in my post above. I meant to say “even eastern Washington is FOR 1639.

Source? Also, wasn't it you who said Hillary Clinton would even win Eastern Washington counties back in 2016? That turned out to be false (besides Whitman county which she won by a tiny margin).

[rkcarguy]

I've only ran into two people that are voting yes for I-1631, it seems the carbon tax isn't going to go, and it shouldn't. There needs to be better accountability for the spending and management of the collected taxes, and the whole thing needs to be approached differently, not "how many people/businesses can we financially ruin and their absence will reduce carbon emissions", which is what I really see in this bogus bill.
Unfortunately I-1639 is probably going to pass, and it's not all that bad EXCEPT for the blanket classification of everything semi-auto being an "assault rifle".....therefore letting the cat out of the bag that once again this was written by someone either completely clueless regarding guns or very onerous.