All these facets of the initiative seem reasonable, but what does the 10 day waiting period on semiautomatic assault rifles do? Is it just a step towards an infinite day waiting period on semiautomatic assault rifles? Because of course almost all guns are semiautomatic and the term "assault rifle" is just marketing. Unless the shooter is going to crawl through mud before their spree, any old rifle that isn't bolt action is just as good as an AR-15.

This is a badly written law that won't prevent a single criminal from committing a crime with a gun.

It's just more feel-good bullshit.

I am voting the heck for this, just so @2 can get his feewings hoit.

And I’ve probably fired assault weapons a heck of a lot more than you ever have.

This is a prudent and sensible solution

I am sure Tim Eyman is excited about this development.

Every meager attempt to solve any intractable social problem where there is a financial interest in the status quo is labeled “feel good bullshit.” And then any movement that is more robust is “A DANGEROUS SLIPPERY SLOPE!”

Do nothing and the problems get worse and the same regressive forced wail about your impotency. Do well considered first-step action and regressive forces mock you as “feel good” and symbolic. Do anything else and you’re overstepping.

Boy. It’s almost as if there are powerful for-profit interests opposed to any social improvement who benefit from intractable social problems, huh?

The fact that rimfire rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 are defined as assault weapons, an already dubious legal classification of weapons generally mechanically identical to other weapons with different accessories that for cosmetic reasons are uncontroversial, is asinine. The rifle I shot as a Boy Scout is not even close to being an analog to a standard military issue rifle and is generally used for recreational target shooting and controlling vermin populations in rural areas. I'm sure a few rabbits in the fields of rural Washington will enjoy the extra ten days of life dining on local organic produce that might have otherwise found its way to done human's plate. Little else will be accomplished by the consequences of passing this proposed law written by individuals with no technical acumen regarding that which they seek to regulate. Passing this law would be akin to allowing climate change deniers and flat earthers regulate gas stations. Let's be reasonable about this.

@3
My "Fewings aren't hurt."

What pisses me off more than a badly written ineffective law is that the initiative process was intended to empower the people and bypass corruptive big money. Now this process has been hijacked by the rich for their own personal agendas.

I spent a good amount of time talking to signature gatherers on this matter and even bought lunch for two of them. They said they're paid $2.50 for each signature and have no problem lying their asses off to get paid.

Now, the principal funders of this bullshit are all billionaires, starting with Nick Hanauer, the first non-family investor in Amazon. The two next largest funders and Bill Gates and Paul Allen.

Why do you suppose this is?

All of these billionaires have private security (all current or former police) with automatic weapons. Trouble is they don't believe us 'common folk' should have guns.

EXHIBIT A:
This is a piece that Nick Hanauer wrote for Politico, under his byline, explaining why the monstrous disparity of wealth in this country and the world is a dangerous thing for rich people.

Now why do you suppose he and his ilk would fund anti-gun initiatives right after he wrote this piece? Read it for yourself. I'm not making this shit up.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER
July/August 2014

Memo: From Nick Hanauer
To: My Fellow Zillionaires

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

Well. Good thing there are no billionaires running gun companies that spend millions every fucking year for fifty years lobbying lawmakers to prevent any sort of reasonable gun regulations.

Oh. Wait.

@1:

How many total rounds can you pre-load into the magazine of a bolt-action rifle? How quickly can those cartridges be loaded into the chamber on a per-minute basis compared to a semi? There's a very good reason why mass-killers prefer the latter: maximum indiscriminate carnage.

As for the 10 day waiting period, well, a lot of people who buy firearms meaning to do harm, either to themselves or to others, do so on-impulse. Making them wait a few days means they're less likely to succumb to that impulse, and therefore less likely to inflict harm.

@2:

Ah, the old "this won't solve 100% of the problem, therefore it's useless" canard. Let me ask you this: how many people NOT being killed on any given day by someone in possession of a high-capacity, rapid-fire semi-automatic weapon do you consider an unacceptable number?

Hooray! And fuck you, neofascist NRA gun nuts!

Easier to just keep building them for cheap off the record.
Passed or not doesn't matter to me.

I don't care either way. Easier to just build them for cheap off the record.

This initiative didn't comply with State Law. Regardless of how you feel that should have been enough...

Furthermore, this will do next to nothing to reduce gun violence in Washington. We have a tiny number of deaths from rifles as is.

Even if your the most anti gun person on earth the rollback of HIPPA rights should concern you.

As a gun owner I’m not the least bit concerned about my HIPPA rights.

But there it is again. Gun nuts are total absolutists where litterly any change to the status quo of casual gun availablilty and an obscene number of gun deaths.

It weird what rights gun extremists are totally willing to abridge. You know. Apparently keeping our children in armed Stalags is totally ok. Allowing armed goons to show up at town halls and intimidate political foes like the SS is totally ok. The rights of billion dollar for-profit arms dealers to manipulate law makers totally ok.

That the gun lobby took money from and conspired with the hostile totalitarian Russian regime (that ironically doesn’t have a 2nd amendment) to subvert our republic. Totally ok.

So if this law is going to be so ineffective then I guess we have implement more extreme curbs to gun rights.

You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.

As a gun owner I will happily give up my four shotguns, three rifles, and two handguns to further this aim if I have to.

Because this bullshit has gone on long enough.

@16: Keep at least a rifle and a handgun. Could come in handy someday. You never know.

@2,6,7,14

Sad isn't it?

Please accept my "Thoughts and prayers" for your dilemma. Backup plan maybe try a candlelight vigil.

@16 Dr. Zaius: Thank you,
@19 Just Another Dumbfuck: Yeah, right. Tell that to the grieving parents back in Newtown, Connecticut after Adam Lanza's mass shooting, or to people at the Burlington Mall, or Christmas shoppers at the Clackamas Mall outside Portland, Oregon, surviving concertgoers on the Las Vegas Strip, or at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, not to mention the surviving high schoolers and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, for starters, you sick, pathetic fuck.

@21 +Jacksonville

@21
Ummmmm, did you look to see who @19 was speaking to?

@1: the 10-day waiting period will make you have to wait longer. that might allow some resentment-addled incel neckbeard fuck the time to calm down and decide not to end lives. let's call it the "allen ivanov" clause.

personally, I want 6-month waiting periods for first-time buyers.

@25

I agree completely. Waiting periods should be much longer, particularly in cases where self defense is critical.

For example, a woman is being threatened by a batshit crazy ex-boyfriend with a history of violence and abuse and would like to be able to defend herself and her children. Waiting periods certainly make sense for her.

@19: I responded the way I did because I felt your comment to @2, @6, @7, & @14 was further supporting their 'meh' attitude toward the current ugly escalation in gun violence.
@23 spunkbutter, re @19: "Thoughts and prayers"? A "candlelight vigil"? Neither one will bring all those innocent people senselessly killed by gunfire back. That was my point, and I stand by it.
@25 Max Solomon: Agreed, and thank you.

@26 Certified Public Nutcase: That's NOT what Max meant at all. Guns shouldn't be so easily accessible--and particularly to batshit crazy ex-boyfriends. We do not need to arm every living creature on this dying planet in order to survive.

Auntie, I think 19 was giving a sarcastic jab to the folks whining about gun regulations. He/she was throwing that 'meh' attitude back in their faces, i.e. thoughts and prayers + vigils are the only solutions gun control opponents have to offer.

@29 Lastlight: I stand corrected. I see that now and thank you.
@19: I thought you really were with the 'meh' sayers. My humble apologies.

Here's an idea:

Make any and all guns 100% legal to buy, own, and use.

For women.

Any man that wants to use a gun, say for hunting, or target practice, would need to obtain signed affidavits from, oh let's say 3, women attesting to his good character/non-homicidal intentions/what-have-you.
These signatures would allow him a one-time use permit.

Next time he wants to go hunting? 3 separate signatures.

If he gets caught in possession without a time-stamped permit (countersigned by a state or federal official, of course), he gets clapped in irons for Intention To Commit Terrorism With A Deadly Weapon, or something.

And yes, this won't stop all gun crimes, but seat belts don't stop all vehicle deaths either, and they're still a great idea, so fuck you.

Grizelda @ 30 and those who provided clarification (23&29) of my post.

No worries!

@28

Apparently you didn't read my post. Waiting periods work both ways, so you're saying to me that women don't have a right to defend themselves or their children.

This is simply harassment. Look at the list. It contains every single thing that could possibly be used as a punishment tool against those who are a threat to no one. Whoever put this together thought of EVERY possible angle to punish firearm owners. It's the best that the people who want to outlaw private firearm possession think they can get away with.

So, the vote is going to boil down to how many people want guns banned and how many who don't. That means it's basically the city of Seattle vs the rest of the state.

On the other hand, if this IS passed it will be another great pro-Second Amendment precedent-setting case when the Supreme Court strikes it down. So in the end, it's win-win for Washington State gun owners.