Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"

Status
Not open for further replies.

SDC

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
3,117
Location
People's Republic of Canada
Re-posted from another forum, originally from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: note the "I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.


Despite shootings, gun control unlikely
Lawmakers reluctant to pass measures

By MELISSA SANTOS
P-I REPORTER

OLYMPIA -- Heading into the 2007 Legislature, leading lawmakers are reluctant to pass new gun-control measures despite last year's mass killing on Capitol Hill, a downtown office shooting and this week's gun slaying of a Tacoma high school student.

Insiders and experts say the gun lobby's influence may be too strong, politicians' courage too weak and the number of gun victims still too low to prompt action.

In Seattle, where aggravated assaults with guns rose 19 percent last year, Mayor Greg Nickels and police Chief Gil Kerlikowske are urging legislators to pass bills regulating the sale and storage of guns.

But Democrats in the House and the Senate say their priorities lie elsewhere -- increasing funding for education and health care.

And Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said she's uncertain a push for tougher gun regulations would do much good.

"There are a lot of things to consider," Brown said. "We still have open borders. Absent federal legislation ... people can still walk right across the border and buy guns in Idaho."

House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, represents the district where Kyle Huff gunned down six people at a Capitol Hill house party in March and borders the downtown area where six people were shot -- one woman fatally -- at the Jewish Federation four months later. He said the Democratic caucus has been focused on other issues and has yet to discuss proposed gun control measures.

On Thursday Chopp said he would meet with Kerlikowske to discuss the issue and review relevant proposals, but he gave no indication that he would try to push through a new law.

A bill aiming to close a so-called loophole that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without a background check was filed last month. That measure has yet to be discussed in depth, he said Wednesday.

advertising
"I haven't had time to poll our members in terms of that particular proposal," Chopp said.

Incoming state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said it's unlikely bills related to gun control will go far this legislative session.

"I think the core Democratic constituents are going to be pleased with a lot of stuff we do this session, but I don't think they'll be very pleased with what we do with gun control, which is not very likely to be much," he said.

Nationally, gun rights have long been a wedge issue for Democrats and Republicans, with gun control being primarily an issue of the left.

But in Washington, Democrats have not embraced the cause.

The national group the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Washington state a D+ rating for gun control legislation.

Natalie Reber, executive director of Washington CeaseFire, said Washington got a subpar grade "because it hasn't passed sensible gun laws to protect our children and families, such as mandatory background checks on all gun purchases.

"Our elected officials had the opportunity (last) session to pass common-sense gun legislation. Instead they once again allowed the gun lobby to undermine any possibility of passing legislation supported by voters that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and other prohibited purchasers."

Despite this year's Democratic majority in both chambers, chances for gun control legislation are slim.

The gun show bill's strongest supporters anticipate opposition in the House and the Senate.

"Even though we have a large Democratic majority, I believe it is an issue that will still have a lot of challenges in the Legislature," said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, who sponsored last year's failed bill in the Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla, said he is concerned about the rise in violent crime in King County but feels that it is unfair to punish all gun owners for the mistakes of a few.

"What's been happening is unfortunate," Hewitt said. "A lot of it has to do with our social attitudes today. The problem starts with people, not guns."

Dave Workman, a senior editor of Gun Week, a publication owned by the Second Amendment Foundation, said bills to regulate gun shows are misguided.

"The real issue about this is that gun shows really are not the source of these firearms. Whether you close this so-called gun show loophole or not, the gun shows have nothing to do with any of the high-profile shootings in Seattle in the last years and those guys know it," Workman said.

In more than a decade of lawmaking in Olympia, Murray, the incoming senator from Seattle, has built a reputation as a champion for underdog issues, such as gay rights. He said that gun control is among the toughest issues for Washington Democrats to advance.

"It would be easier to pass a gay marriage bill down here than it is to pass a gun control bill," he said.

Murray said gun control is explosive because it is misinterpreted as an effort to take guns away from people.

"I don't want to take people's guns away, but there are types of guns people shouldn't have and certain people who shouldn't have guns," he said.

Murray said he would support those legislators who are trying to protect their constituents' rights to own a gun, but not unconditionally.

"They have to support me in trying find a way to address the gun problem that led to the murder of seven people in my district and an attack on the Jewish Federation just blocks from my district," Murray said.

The gun lobby is perhaps the biggest obstacle facing lawmakers who want to address the issue, he said.

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, agreed that the gun lobby is the main reason politicians are unlikely to pass new control laws.

Though the political risk is not nearly as big as it is perceived, fear still prevails, he said.

"Politicians are afraid of the NRA and they are not afraid of the ACLU. It's that simple," Jones said.

That fear may be unwarranted, he said.

"California regulated the hell out of guns -- and they don't get in trouble."

Jones said the National Rifle Association's power is declining, but he thinks Washington politicians are "playing it safe in the sense that: Why kick a sleeping dog that's leaving you alone right now?" he said.

"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," Jones said.

"I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.

Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, said Democrats aren't pushing for increased gun control because they don't want to lose the support of rural voters.

"I think Democrats are being much more careful than they used to be," Roach said.

"They want to continue to stay in a majority locally and nationally and will do their best to limit the liberal elements of their caucuses," she said.

2007 LEGISLATURE

Gun control advocates are pushing a bill that would require background checks of all buyers at gun shows and flea markets in Washington state.

P-I reporter Chris McGann contributed to this report. P-I reporter Melissa Santos can be reached at 360-943-8311 or melissasantos @ seattlepi.com.
 
"I don't want to take people's guns away, but there are types of guns people shouldn't have and certain people who shouldn't have guns," he said.
Uh, yeah....right --- I think what he really means is the only people that can have 'freedoms' are the ones he and his cronies approve of - you know - like liberal politicians and liberal hollywood lefties and liberal campaign contributors. You know - the good elites, that can be 'trusted'. :banghead:
 
Nationally, gun rights have long been a wedge issue for Democrats and Republicans, with gun control being primarily an issue of the left.

So some truths should be self-evident. What we are primarily up against is “Progressive” Democrats, and no one should forget it.

Murray, the incoming (Democrat) senator from Seattle says, "I don't want to take people's guns away, but there are types of guns people shouldn't have and certain people who shouldn't have guns,"

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, obviously another Progressive (a new word for “Liberal”), who is clearly disappointed with the slow progress of gun control legislation has the answer.

"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress. I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.”

So Progressive left-wing Democrats are hoping that a few more kids get killed off just to push their agenda. We should never forget it. :fire:
 
Yes, of course, but the antis promote school massacres. Why do you think the media gives the mad dogs so much attention? Because they want it to keep happening.

If you remember Stockton, you will remember that shortly after the Stockton Schoolyard, a mad dog in Kentucky attempted the same at this work. He had clipped news articles on Stockton and put them up on his wall.

After Kentucky a media producer boasted that that was exactly the effect the media had planned. The media prays for copy cats and rolls in the blood of the innocent.
 
"I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.
:barf: :barf: :barf:

Words fail me.
 
"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress. I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.”
Sort of ranks up there with the comment, "one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette."

Pilgrim
 
I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.
You also didn't see school massacres until it was made known that there were no guns allowed within a thousand feet of a school

On the flip side maybe it will take a few more Pearl Mississippi type incidents for the antis to see that these rules are counter effective
 
Perhaps if your cause is advanced by the massacre of children you should get another one...
 
You sure thats a serious quote and not just made up? We have to remember people on both sides of the argument like making up stories and some news people can't tell the truth to save their lives for example Michelle Malkin. If the guy really says that he is just a really disturbed nutjob. Nutjobs follow many different ideologies after all.
 
Firearms have been around and accessible to people of all ages for hundreds of years. There have never been more gun laws and restrictions than there are today. There have never been more school shootings than there are today (say, the last 10 years or so).
Is it so hard for them to grasp the concept that maybe guns aren't the problem?
Maybe you should sit down with your screwed up kid and ask him why he demands "respect" from his classmates.
 
Disturbed nutjob or not, Bryan Jones is listed as the head of a University of Washington think tank, and directly quoted in a mainstream paper. It's not some ALF rantings from a spray-painted wall.

This is how the core antis think. I strongly agree with the frequently observed contention that they are for-the-most-part seriously unbalanced people, and their fear of guns is just projection of their own inability to control their anger.
 
This is how the core antis think. I strongly agree with the frequently observed contention that they are for-the-most-part seriously unbalanced people, and their fear of guns is just projection of their own inability to control their anger.

Definetly agree with you there. Its a projection thing. Its a neurological disorder to screw with everyone elses life so that they can feel safe in a world that will NEVER be safe.
 
I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.

The man is demented. No one in their right mind would wish harm against children for political gain.
 
How about instead of allowing many of my fellow schoolkids die, we kill you instead?
 
"Politicians are afraid of the NRA and they are not afraid of the ACLU. It's that simple," Jones said.

That fear may be unwarranted, he said.

"California regulated the hell out of guns -- and they don't get in trouble."

Jones said the National Rifle Association's power is declining, but he thinks Washington politicians are "playing it safe in the sense that: Why kick a sleeping dog that's leaving you alone right now?" he said.

Those 20% of you who voted no in the "Do you belong to the NRA?" poll may want to rethink your position. You may not agree with every position the NRA has taken, but no one fears the GOA and it's not going to stop liberals from taking away your gun rights and eventually limiting you to nothing but bolt action rifles and pump/break-open shotguns. The NRA is your only hope.
 
Both sides do it...And if you are intellecutally honest you'll admit it.

You know, we've had this very same discussion about how the Luby's shooting was spun into helping get CCW in Texas and we've discussed how to exploit shootings to get existing gun laws reformed. I get emails from the NRA, GOA and ISRA that make statements about how this shooting or that shooting is a good reason to change existing gun laws to allow concealed carry, to expand concealed carry or to eliminate some other restriction.

Doesn't that make us as bloodthirsty as they are? We're awfully quick to take the moral high ground and talk about how the antis exploit the blood of the victims. But the progun side, us, does the exact same thing. It's called politics.

After every highly publicized shooting both sides of the debate try to exploit the press coverage to get more people on their side of the debate.

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top