Quote of the day—Hanna Scott

McDermott says if the state legislature is not going to pass stricter gun safety measures on its own it needs to get out of the way of cities and counties that want to do it on their own by repealing the state preemption law.

If that happens, the county’s gun safety action plan calls for immediately moving on to enact stricter gun laws, such as banning semi-automatic, high velocity weapons, banning high capacity magazines, raising the age to buy all guns to 21, establishing a waiting period, and requiring a firearm safety course in order to buy a gun.

The council voted through the controversial gun storage initiative on Monday afternoon by a 6-3 margin, with the three other initiatives passing unanimously.

Hanna Scott
October 2, 2018
King County Council approves wide-scoping Gun Safety Action Plan
[This is King County Washington which includes Seattle and many of the surrounding cities.

It appears to me that our best hope, and almost only hope, is to get a friendly SCOTUS. This crap has to stop.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Hanna Scott

  1. From the article: “Whether it’s crime or mass shootings, or whether it’s a gang shooting, or whether it’s suicide, it is important to be talking to youth. They experience this and they experience it in their schools on their streets, in their neighborhoods, in their communities, and to hear from them and make sure that we’re not just adults coming up with solutions we think are going to work, but taking solutions advanced by youth and implementing them I think is going to be essential in one of those prongs of approach to the public health crisis,” McDermott said.

    Why bother polling the “youth” about policy issues? The Seattle and King County councils are populated by alleged adults who regularly act like children anyway.

  2. “It appears to me that our best hope, and almost only hope, is to get a friendly SCOTUS. This crap has to stop.”

    I agree, but I do not see it stopping. Even if we get a friendly SCOTUS, will our federal government be able to enforce rulings by an ‘illegitimate’ court? Just look at the difficulties the administration has had with immigration and sanctuary cities.

  3. A friendly SCOTUS is a plus but doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is that half the country is leftists who hate us and want us dead and will never quit trying. The only thing that solves it is partition so that we are in different countries.

    • How do you think partition should work? The logistics would be a nightmare just on a good day.
      I’m wondering if there might be some way to segregate the large cities/urban areas into their own political category. Remove them from their current states, so they have a smaller tax base, and limit their political power by this condensing. I’m reasonably sure that this division will end up driving out the Deplorables that live and/or work there. However, this allows them to dispose of any holdings there for market value, which is going to be a major sticking point to any “partitioning”.

      Frankly, I think that this or something similar would be the only thing that might, might, keep us from a civil war.

      • The devil is in the details. I understand why we may be willing to settle for a peaceful partition, but why would the leftist agree to give up their breadbasket and power?

        Barbaric statements like the following do not make me optimistic:

        “Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminist laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus, we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”

        Tweeted by Georgetown University provost distinguished professor named Carol Christine last weekend. See https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/laura-ingraham-kavanaugh-saga-the-academic-resistance-at-yale-harvard-georgetown-is-beyond-belief.

      • It would be difficult but a great deal of self-segregation has already happened. This is especially true on the left and even more true of the extreme left. You start with the red-blue county map. Then you do some border fiddles. Think San Bernadino county in CA. Biggest county in the US and it is blue. But the population is all down in the corner by LA. So you are going to have to do some precinct splits. You have to give some attention to making the People’s Republics contiguous (It is easy for America). You create something along the I-5 corridor in CA, WA, OR. Then there is another People’s Republic along the Rio Grande corridor which has extensions N to Denver and W to pick up a bunch of Indian reservations. Another one connecting Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minneapolis etc . Another one including New Orleans, Houston, Memphis and the heavily black rural areas in the deep south. Finally, a big bloc of cities in the NE from Richmond to Boston. Each of these will have access to a border or an ocean. There are going to be some problems that are just not fixable on a map like N Maine for us or red state university towns for them. So you have a set of protocols for people left behind enemy lines. They can stay with the knowledge they will never have power or they can get repatriated under a resettlement program. Hopefully, the numbers will be even enough that property trades will work. Then you move on to economic issues. Apportionment of the debt and assets, terms of trade etc. Basically like a divorce on a giant scale.

        There are those on our side (not to mention the other side) who want harsh terms but if we insist on that, then we will never get to Yes and then it will come to a fight. I see no reason why we couldn’t get along as two countries if we weren’t trying to govern the other. We get along with Canada, after all.

Comments are closed.