It was over before it started

As I said a couple weeks ago they were going to lose on this one. It appears they are admitting defeat already:

You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.

Yet only one week after Washington CeaseFire held a press conference to announce the planned bill, its prospects look dim. “Frustrating, that would be the word,” CeaseFire president Ralph Fascitelli says, speaking of the reaction he’s getting from key politicians as he lobbies for the proposal.

“We don’t have the votes,” he recalls House Speaker Frank Chopp telling him recently. Fascitelli says the powerful Seattle Democrat alluded to a bloc of approximately 20 representatives in his party who are opposed to gun control legislation. In any case, Chopp told Fascitelli, he was preoccupied by the budget and upcoming elections.

Contrary to a report last week in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department has not officially come out in favor of an assault weapons ban although it is “supportive of the work CeaseFire is doing,” according to spokesperson Mark Jamieson. “We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing,” he says.

While the bill has yet to be introduced and debated, Fascitelli already sounds bitter. When it comes to gun control, he says, “there is no leadership in this state.”

A frustrated, bitter bigot. Sounds like we are doing something right in this state.

9 thoughts on “It was over before it started

  1. “We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing”

    An understatement, to be sure.

  2. If police keep getting killed in Washington, perhaps the state would do better without them? Just let everyone fend for themselves? If the gunnies are right, wouldn’t it be a more polite state then (if everyone was armed and the police were non-existent)?

  3. Yes ubu, it actually would. Then reasonable prudent people would make after the fact decisions based on justice, rather than legality, which often has no relation to justice, but does supply control and finances to the professionals in the legal system.

  4. “If the gunnies are right…”
    Girl, you be trippin’! Since when did “the gunnies” propose the elimination of police? Police are necessary so as to have predictable, pre-established means of retaliation against those who violate the rights of others. There is a problem though (not that “the gunnies” have been saying it); laws must be just for this arrangement to work, and there are some idiotic laws police are expected to enforce. I would not want to be a cop.

    What “the gunnies” have been saying is that the right to bear arms (NOT “arming everyone”) is fundamental and therefore unchanging. Further, “the gunnies” have shown that when this right is respected, there tends to be less violent crime, all else being equal.

    Get your history straight. Suggesting that “the gunnies” want to get rid of police, and talking about “if everyone was armed” make you look hysterical and silly.

    As for this “arming everyone” or “giving everyone a gun” nonsense that I see and hear frequently from the anti rights crowd; what the hell? It’s as if supporting the right to free speech means we’re demanding that everyone be forced to have their own radio show or something. Bigots, by their very nature, can’t think straight. They want us to believe that the NRA is on the verge of loading trucks full of guns, driving them down every street in America, and passing out guns to everyone they can find. What absolute horseshit. Stop it.

    Lets see if we can spell it out, real nice and simple, so even the Progressives can understand it. Ready? Here goes. Now try to concentrate;
    Protecting a right to do something does not mean that “everyone” will choose to do it. Understand now?

  5. Okay Lyle, I’ll buy that…

    But watcha going to do about the cops? Seems like there are people in Washington targeting them! If this keeps on, no one is going to want to be a cop! You’ll have to pay them $1,000,000 a year like those Blackwater guys in the ME!

    Do you have a solution? I don’t but I thought I would throw it out there cuz maybe you do.

  6. Cops have been killed in the line of duty since they were first formed by Sir Robert Peel. It’s an unfortunate side effect of being the visible arm of the law. However people are still signing up. Just like some people have some idea that they could not come home one day or could come home missing body parts, but they still enlist in the armed forces.

    Another thing is that while it looks like PMCs like Blackwater are paid big money, they only get paid when they actually WORK on the job, when they’re doing a single contract. Most of the money is spent towards re-equipping and resupplying themselves because they do not always have instant access to weapons, ammo, and gear like the US Army does. ubu, go check out militaryphotos.net sometime, their forums are frequented by quite a few former and current PMCs, some of which may or may not have worked for Blackwater.

    One solution to your problem is to QUIT RELEASING violent felons back into society.
    http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/community/after-tacoma-ambush-los-angele/
    Maurice Clemmoms had an EXTENSIVE criminal past and some Republitard governor whose name rhymes with Applebee’s PARDONED HIM.

    Who the heck came up with the idea of parole for violent felons anyways!?!?!

  7. Part of the solution was in my previous comment. Laws have to be just in order to work. Vice laws, for example, aren’t just. No victim, no crime. It isn’t difficult.

    And anyone who thinks that there could ever be a situation in which cops are never in danger is living in an extremely twisted fantasy land. Lay off the LSD. People do NOT have a built-in abhorrence of danger. We deal with it all the time. Every time you get in a car and whiz down the highway, mere feet from on-coming traffic with a closing speed of 130 miles an hour, you are accepting danger. Chances are, you have or you will be involved in an auto accident. If you get on a motorcycle, those chances rise considerably, but many people do it, possibly in some cases precisely because it’s dangerous. Anthropologists and animal behavior scientists will tell you that we sometimes (especially as adolescents) actively seek danger in the regular course of life. To eliminate all risk is to eliminate life.

    I won’t get into what some people have called the “chickification” of America, but our society seems to be more risk averse that it has ever been, and by a long shot. Confronting danger has often been a sign of “manliness”, and those unwilling to face danger were considered cowards or weaklings. That is our nature, and there are good reasons for it. Accomplishment rarely if ever comes without risk.

  8. Anticitizenone, no, Huckabee didn’t pardon Clemmons. He commuted his sentence from life to 47 years. Had the parole board not paroled him, Clemmons would still be in prison for a great many years.

    I agree that he should not have been out, but it is important that we be accurate in dissemination of data enforcing our position.

Comments are closed.