Quote of the day–Ralph Fascitelli

It matters not that some of the victims may have been affiliated with gangs. These were two groups that were with family and friends out celebrating a sunny Seattle weekend.

Let’s make our parks gun-free zones where families can gather with
peace of mind without the worry of sudden death to innocent loved ones (and
let’s have our park rangers make spot checks to ensure that no one does indeed
have a gun in their possession).

Ralph Fascitelli
President of the board for Washington Ceasefire.
Sammamish park shooting underlines need for gun control
[It doesn’t matter that the people doing the shooting were affiliated with gangs? And if they were engaged in illegal activities, such as assault and battery they aren’t “victims”.

Make our parks gun-free zones? Yeah. Right.

“Gun-free zones” like Virginia Tech, Columbine, Fort Hood, Chicago, and Washington D.C.?

And since we are violating the Washington State Constitution and the Second Amendment we might as well violate the Fourth Amendment while we are at it. Or how about this–since they don’t have a problem violating specific enumerated rights how about we make it illegal for their anti-rights organization to exist? Or for illegal for people to advocate the violation of specific enumerated rights?–Joe]


2 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Ralph Fascitelli

  1. This case is turning out to be pretty interesting. From what I understand so far, Yang K. and David K. were cousins. Both had police records. They were each with a different group at the Lake.

    Yang K. and Cunningham ended up dead. Yang K. was unarmed. Cunningham (no police record) was armed and, according to his brother, had a CCW permit. David K., who was also armed, was part of Cunningham’s group.

    So…. This is all we know so far.

    Obviously this whole thing shoots holes in that saying “An armed society is a polite society.” An armed society with one loose bullet is the beginning of chaos!!

  2. I agree, for the most part, that “an armed society is a polite society”. But I would disagree somewhat with the notion that gangs are a part of “society”. They are created for the purpose of fighting against society: to rob, to kill, to rape, and to do all sorts of wickedness. When the writer of the article says “It matters not if the people were affiliated with gangs” he is dead wrong!

    In seeing gangs in my high school, I know a thing or two about them. Gangs don’t need guns to perpetuate violence: they can use knives, bats, hammers, broken bottles, fists, and many other things to commit their horrible deeds. And gangs kill for trivial things, such as for wearing the wrong color of a t-shirt. And they don’t always use guns to kill.

    But the article claims that banning guns will somehow make society “polite” and “safe”. This is hogwash, because it is the individuals who were quick to commit violence, and they will commit it–even if they need to bring their “banned” guns to do so (and as they so readily did so in Chicago, before the gun ban). Thus, even if “an armed society is a polite society” isn’t true in the immediate, short term, the claim that “a disarmed society is a polite society” is far more false.

Comments are closed.