January 13: March Against Gun Violence


Are you still beating this dead horse? Yawn.
We need thousands of bodies in the street.
Interesting choice of words.
@ 1, LOL. No matter where you stand on this, the political dialog has shifted on this issue, as surely as the one over taxes and the economy shifted with OWS. It sure is kicking up a lot of dust for a dead horse.
Also, what fun it is that the first three comments on this thread are all from Denver residents.

Anyway, I hope someone remembers to call the local TV stations and the Seattle Times to cover it. Otherwise a march at Westlake is about as newsworthy as an instance of panhandling at Westlake.
What exactly is a 'semiautomatic assault weapon' and how are they any different than every other semiautomatic made since 1909?
You left a tautology in the first sentence after the block quote, Cienna.

@1: You're mistaking children with horses. It was a score of dead children that put this topic in the news again, not the Stranger. Sack up and own your callousness, troll.

This sounds like a march I'd like to/should attend. The Sandy Hook story hit me particularly hard.
Funny how all you have to do is elect a black president, reform health care, legalize pot, and enact gay marriage and next thing you know, "no you can't" starts to sound pretty damn silly.
Thousands of bodies in the street at Westlake ... ok by me, but how is this going to exert pressure on the political politics of gun-loving Republican legislators?

If you believed that, you'd not be worried because guns that are, in your words, "no different" would still be legal. If they really are no different, then what cause do you have for alarm? Nothing would change, right?

Same old concern troll. "This will never work. This will have no effect whatsoever. AND SO I'M FLIPPING THE FUCK OUT ABOUT IT!"

Hint: act more nonchalant and your schtick will sell better.
I'm with #5.
Please know the terminology so that you can clearly communicate what you are pushing to ban and what you want to allow.
Otherwise you will make the exact same error that was made with the previous "assault weapons ban".
"Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon."

Does is matter if the next shooting is done with a semi-automatic carbine with or without a bayonet lug?
Or with or without a flash suppressor?

FUNCTIONALITY is the key aspect.
Not cosmetic features.
I love you, unpronounceable @7.
Please attend this rally. We need feet on the ground. The terms of the discussion have changed.

@10, most of the appeal of these weapons is based on cosmetics. No one, sportsman or maniac, would be interested in carrying a pink one. It is the cosmetic references to the machines of war that turn their owners on, not the technical details of how they fire. Most assault rifle owners would get the same jollies if their gun was surreptitiously replaced with one made out of soap, until the time to fire came -- which it never does, for most of them.

Washington Ceasefire's priorities now are (a) assault weapons, (b) large-capacity magazines and (c) the gun show loophole, because those are the most likely to gain traction in the legislature. Right now, a successful vote on anything except (a) is unlikely, but there are vast reserves of hidden support even amongst NRA members.

The other priority is a negative one -- stopping the bill to arm teachers, which has been or will soon be submitted in all fifty states.

Come out and show Washington that the NRA is not the only voice. Hit me up on Facebook if you want to know more.
I remember when cease fire tried to have a die-in for the Virginia tech shooting, They couldn’t even muster enough demonstrators to represent the 32 people killed.

I might go counter demonstrate this, but I will probably drink beer instead.

I have the feeling that not many will show up. Gun control advocates tend to be those that want others, namely Nanny Government, to do things for them.

Also permitted Sunday marches don’t tend to get much accomplished aside from making the participants feel better about their own inadequacies.
I do not agree with that.

But beyond that, I'll just ask again whether it matters if the next shooting is done with a semi-automatic carbine with or without a bayonet lug?
Or with or without a flash suppressor?
The functionality of moving (magazine capacity)+1 bullets remains the same.
My wife has a pink AR, I built it for light weight reduced recoil and unicorn stickers. I enjoy shooting it and it is always a head turner on the range.

I would be behind legislation that says all "assault rifles" must be pink, kinda like how blaze orange is required for hunting. I think it would make America a cuter place.

Also you are right the NRA is not the only voice, others include Gun Owners of America, The second Amendment Foundation, thousands of unaffiliated gun owners and my beloved Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Some of us remember what happens to those who are stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.
"I would be behind legislation that says all 'assault rifles' must be pink, kinda like how blaze orange is required for hunting."


Sorry, cannot agree with that. What if I really want green zebra camo?
How about no more than X% of the gun can be black/dark-blue/dark-brown?

Just a reminder: your plan is to have Nanny Government hire 130,000 more armed agents to fan out across the country, increasing the size of the DHS by something like a fifth. And to have Nanny Government snoop out people with mental illness and either put them under surveillance or in concentration camps. And to have Nanny Government censor Call to Duty and Natural Born Killers.

That's how the gun nuts are going to prevent the next massacre.

Oh, I forgot. We're supposed to spoon feed our kids on rugged individualist libertarianism every day of their lives, except when there's a crazed shooter. Then they instantly become mindless, collectivist ants who rush forward as a commune towards the attacker, thinking only of the group, and nothing of themselves. Those that live will go home and rub one out to a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Gun crime is down 50% vs 20 years ago. Its also concentrated in cities and only a teeny tiny percentage involves rifles.


Cosmetic gun bans are devoid of facts, or reason, they are shallow emotional pleas to keep people terrified. Your more likely to win the multistate powerball jackpot then to be killed in a "shooting massacre". ( by largely mentally unstable white males )

If you want to cry and save children, try outlawing abortion, swimming pools, soft drinks, or smoking. Your currently using all the same villianizing and appeals to emotion.
Despite your accusations I am against the armed agents in schools specifically because it seems to be part of the police state agenda. I also do not support regulating the video game industry, due to viewing it as a restriction on free speech.
@17, not only that, but even the existing police officers who work in schools think the NRA's plan is insane and dangerous.
"Our association would be uncomfortable with volunteers," said Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers — whose members are mostly trained law enforcement officers who "become part of the school family.'"

Canady questioned how police officers responding to reports of a shooter would know whether the person with a gun is a volunteer or the assailant.

Successful security programs are focused much more on prevention than on reacting to emergencies. The officers they hire are not just hired guns, and certainly not elderly retired cops wandering the halls waiting for hoodlums to steal their weapons off of them. They have offices. They are akin to counselors more than they are armed guards; their goal is to prevent violence, not shoot towards it. They aim to stop people from wanting to fight, from dropping out, from getting expelled.
Kenneth Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm, said having trained officers in schools is "more of a prevention program than a reactive program if you have the right officers who want to work with kids."

But he also criticized a drop in funding for school security, saying, "Congress and the last two administrations have chipped away to the point of elimination of every program for school security and emergency planning."

Dr. Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center that provides training to schools, said the NRA's suggestion of using volunteers "is a whole new concept of school safety." He questioned whether the NRA wants to bring the best sharpshooters on campus.

"How is that going to create a positive atmosphere for young people?" he asked. "How does that work on the prevention side?"

You will notice a distinct lack of "police state" tough-guy dipshit talk in the words of people who actually know what goes on inside schools.

Ya know, we don't have to wait for legislators to get this done -- there's a goddamn initiative process in this state!

If they want to hold a rally to get new gun control laws, let's hold one that's a petition signing drive too and get that motherfucker on the ballot at least.
Why is it that we always have marches about these things when marches have not done much about anything in at least a couple generations?

All they do is give people a false sense of having done something. Having a concert in a park and listening to some religious types drone on about grief is not a politically useful activity.

Or better yet, in the true spirit of democracy and individual rights all the people that do not like guns refrain from buying one.

@2 - No kidding. Sounds like a sniper's dream.
@24, yeah, you go on quoting Breitbart. We all know what you are.

Way to kill the messenger, I don't usually read Breibart, but I did expect you plugging your ears and yellling, "NNANANANANA!" when you hear something you dont like.

The fact remains that your #1 gun banning buddy has a concealed carry permit. Why don't you write her a letter calling her a "gun owning piece of shit."
@27, nah, I've reformed, mate. I'm with you now. I'm all fired up and ready to implement some of those sane and sensible reforms you (occasionally) pretend to support -- when you aren't forgetting to let the mask slip. Come on, sugarplum, let's have those ideas. We'll work together to get them passed! Come on, then, what are you waiting for?

Yeah, I thought so. You see, it is not strictly speaking GUN OWNERSHIP that makes you a piece of shit. The other way around, most likely.

Rally for black Presidential candidate

March to legalize pot

March for health care reform

Rally to pass gay marriage

Didn't we get out of Iraq or something too? And DADT; seems like somebody was out marching against that like every year. These are the easy ones. Do I have to dig into Wikipedia?

This "stay home it doesn't help" bullshit is weak.
How about enforcing existing law, like keeping firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, this would prevent a sizeable portion of murders. Hell, I will even support background checks for all firearms transfers provided there are no further restrictions.

Gun owners and the NRA have been compromising for years, but you do not believe in compromise, you believe in stripping American citizens of their natural rights.

As for "the slipping of the mask" I think you have already won that award, exposing your self to the gun grabbing fascist that you are. I use to have some respect for you fnarf but you have proved to be as much of a parody as Will in Seattle.
@27 Many of us who want more regulations have no problem with gun ownership.

I own one myself and would have no problem complying with laws similar to those for my car or my pets. Licensing, training, transfer restrictions, etc. Along with liability if I allow it to be used illegally or fail to take reasonable steps to secure it and restrictions on the purchase of ammo.

It's a fucking gun that can kill people after all.

Yea, we got out of the Iraq war right on Bush Jr's schedule. I was in the anti-war movement, it did exactly jack shit to end the war. But you are not exactly a student of history.

For the four marches you mentioned there are 100 more that accomplished nothing.

As for the demanding that government ban guns. Will Cease Fire be marching door to door to take them away, or will they be counting on armed uniformed thugs to do that for them?
@29 Correlation does not equal causation. The successful ones you mentioned had plenty of actual work behind them.

All I can say is, scroll up. The gun nuts are pissing their pants over this. Wonder what they know?

The NRA has never compromised. They have always resisted enforcing existing laws. They have fought tooth and nail against closing the gun show loophole. The NRA has fought against any proposal to identify felons and mentally ill gun buyers. They have fought against upgrading instant background checks.

They have even stood in the way of allowing even an up or down vote on Obama's nominee to head the ATF. If they supported enforcing existing laws, they'd want the top gun law enforcement agency to have somebody in charge.

Oh look you are wrong as usual:

NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill

The NRA also supported provisions the Gun Control Act of 1968, the national Firearms act of 1934 and the Import restrictions of 1989.

The fact of the matter is that many in the firearms community see the NRA as being traitorous for the concessions that they have made in the past.

As for Obama’s justice department, they allowed hundreds if not thousands of firearms to fall into the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels.


The NRA's role was to weaken background checks and make it easier for mentally ill people to get their guns back after cursory treatment. The price of their support was to gut the bill. Thanks so much!

And their response to a foreign sting operation that went bad is to hobble ATF law enforcement inside the US? Who benefits from that? Gun criminals. How are problems at the ATF going to be fixed if nobody's in charge? Thanks, NRA.

Can you even read?

"When the NRA and I agree on legislation, you know that it's going to get through, become law and do some good," says Schumer.

"The legislation requires state and federal agencies to transmit all relevant disqualifying records to the NICS database. It also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and it imposes penalties — including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law — on states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS."

I am not even going to start on the ATF since you seem to be too puerile to grasp the content a simple news article.
Oh hell, this is fun. See you at the march! And then see you in Olympia, my friends, in DC and everywhere else.
@30 -

So, when I read your comment I'm led to believe that you support outlawing private gun sales, and then some sort of mental health evaluation whenever guns (or ammo) are purchased?

I'm not very clear, because the existing law as written is effectively unenforceable. It essentially requires people to know if another person is lying to them at the point of sale, in the case of private sales, and relies an a crazy mishmash of healthcare law to establish mental health. Yes, enforce the intent of existing law - but make it effective. The existing state of background checks is clearly insufficient for the public good.
@30, right -- I'm a "fascist" and a "gun grabber" because I'm promoting something that you yourself claim will be meaningless and cosmetic, while you are being oh, so reasonable in repeatedly and openly staking out your ultra-moderate position to the RIGHT of the gibbering, slavering NRA. That makes perfect sense.

The only thing you have ever suggested is a laughably unrealistic "blah blah mental health check" that can't possibly mean anything. What standard of mental health would Nancy Lanza not have passed? Yeah, I'd support that too -- it's ten times more "gun grabbing" than anything I have ever suggested, but you say it because you know it doesn't mean anything. It's not going to happen, which is how you like it. All of your "proposals" are like that: sheer fakery.

You're a liar, and lying like that has served you well over the years to deflect attention from what's really happening. But maybe not any longer. Maybe now we'll be able to get a teensy bit of "cosmetic" protection from people like you. And once the hold is broken maybe we can have a real conversation about what guns are for and who should have them.

You won't be a part of that conversation because you're not part of anything constructive, ever. You are an enemy of civilization. Are guns legal? Supreme Court says yes. Are guns necessary? The foundations of American liberty say "no, fool, the whole point of America is to make guns unnecessary for freedom". Read your Locke. Or don't; go polish your precious guns instead.
So, "Cascadian Bacon", you noted that "Gun owners and the NRA have been compromising for years".

Others have noted here on Slog that you're full of shit. Your "Yay, guns R great" attitude certainly seems to be loaded with the usual jingoistic wingnut shit.

Tell me, "Cascadian Bacon", what do you have to say about this editorial, which points out how noted trauma surgeon Fred Rivara was stymied by the goddamn NRA when he just tried to collect data on firearm violence?


See, "Cascadian Bacon", the first steps to addressing a problem involve collecting hard data about the problem. That data will then lead towards a solution. That's the scientific method that rational people follow.

The NRA, the organization you affirm is full of compromise, in this case forced legislation that blocked research, thus blocking even attempting to gain understanding of the problem.

This is the NRA figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears, and going "Naa naa naa, I can't hear you!"

Only unfortunately we all suffer due to the stupidity and cowardice of the NRA. How do you feel about that, "Cascadian Bacon"? Tell us how the NRA suppressing even studying the problem is in any way "compromising".

Oh, right, you're so cowardly you can't even do your job unless you're holstering your peni-- er, sidearm.

Piss off, you coward. Your opinions are worthless.
@41, thank you.
@20: Your (intentional?) non sequitor reference to video games as a possible reason for gun violence betrays your complete ignorance of the subject matter, as well as where you get your talking points. You would be equally valid in pointing to the Leisure Suit Larry games or The Guy Game (hell, even Custer's Revenge, for the older ones) as games that teach kids how to have sex. Specifically: form your hands into two curled sets of claws, then rotate your thumbs, while twitching your first two fingers on each hand seemingly at random. Yes, do that and the ladies will love it. But these same hand motions are also how you murder people with guns, so be careful, kids!
@44: Given that the bulk of his post was distancing himself from the NRA's statements, I suspect that he was referencing the blame the NRA had placed on video games, not just bringing it up out of the blue.
@42: Ha, Kellerman. Man, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that. Oh yeah, their funding was cut off, alright, but it had nothing to do with the "evil" NRA. It had everything to do with the fact that they were fabricating their data. You know what "fabricating" means, right? Making it up. Fudging it. What a pair of jokers.
Suggestion: Possibly increase participation, and pretty much guarantee better news coverage, by not scheduling your event at the same time as a potential Seahawks playoff game. Granted, a few things have to happen between now and then for these two events to concur (Green Bay and Seattle have to win this weekend, and the Seattle at Atlanta game has to be scheduled as the latter of the two playoff games on the thirteenth.), but why not move the event a few hours or days, and eliminate the possibility of any conflict?

The NRA's campaign to censor science is some of the very best proof that the gun lobby has gone off the rails and is actively working against the interest of the American people. They are nihilists who think this whole country is their enemy.

You could almost make the case that one rouge scientist needed to be reigned in. If you had proof, but let's not even go there. You're seriously fucking paranoid if you believe the only way to stop "fabricated" data is to cut off all funding for gun violence research at the federal level.

You're asserting a vast conspiracy that says nowhere in America can the government find one honest scientist to gather data on guns.

And they added a gag rule saying wellness programs can't even ask about gun storage in homes! The NRA doesn't want anybody to know about how many gun owners shoot themselves and their own families. Or how many of your toys that you leave lying around end up in the hands of criminals. They're working to bury the truth.

It's because there is nothing they love more than guns. Nothing.
Yeah, well, keep in mind that the NRA didn't cut off the funding — Congress did. Because at that point it was pretty obvious who was off the rails, and it wasn't the NRA.

But I hope you're having a nice day in your fantasy-land anyway.
Even though this is turning to the usual pissing match...

A measure I would support: opening NICS to private individuals wishing to sell their firearms and verify that the person they are selling to is disallowed. I'd still make it an optional step (as I'm personally of the thought that making it mandatory is registration and registration to exercise a fundamental right is fundamentally wrong), but it would certainly provide incentive for those of us who want to do the right thing. Those who want to do the right thing are who laws tend to affect, and it's frustrating that the only way I can get a NICS check on a person is to go through an FFL, which results in a 20-50 dollar fee and at least 20 years of registration in their bound book.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
@45: Possibly. Though the fact that he even brought up that scapegoat at all made me suspect he believes the argument holds water. Though frankly I'm more interested in what he'd have to say in response to Dr Awesome's comment @42, and whether his response would be as paranoid and delusional as 5280's.

First we're told how the NRA is so reasonable, always offering compromise. Then when we see evidence that they won't budge on even the most distantly related gun issues, you walk it back and blame Congress, not the NRA. If you think the NRA's lobbying and campaigning have no influence, then why do you guys give them your money?

The point is that the gun nuts of America use their powerful Washington lobby to add teeny little riders go great big bills that attack the foundations of every common sense response to gun violence.

They claim that they support enforcing the law, yet use their influence to cut off the ATF at the knees. They oppose every new law, and if that doesn't work, they pull the teeth from the bill before it sees the light of day.

I guess if you want to shift the blame to Congress, then we need to talk about how cowardly they are under the threat of NRA vote scoring. If you're saying the NRA is a paper tiger and it's time to call their bluff, then we can agree there. The NRA has been a powerful force in Congress, but only because of an illusion, a pack of lies.

Ninety-nine percent of NRA candidates failed in the last election, after all. Further proof that the NRA's extremist views and their reconstituted interpretation of the Second Amendment are alien to mainstream America. They're a fringe group that hijacked the Republican Party. They've failed to win the support of a democratic majority so instead they try to leverage the power of money in the back rooms where politicians cut deals out of sight of the voters. Their enemy is the truth, so they try to censor scientific research and use gag rules to prevent doctors from talking to their patients about guns.

It's disgusting to see you twist left and twist right, trying to squirm away from the consequences of this disastrous flood of guns and loony gun culture.
@50, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and yet one still has to obtain a marriage license and belong to the specific class allowed to marry as defined by the licensing state (from siblings to same sex partners to those already married, many people are prohibited from exercising a "fundamental right"). Wrong as it may be in the case of love and marriage, a fundamental right that could result in death *might* warrant something as benign as registration. Yeah yeah, "THAR TAKIN MY GUNS!" etc.

@Cascadian Bacon, Do you agree that the Supreme Court nominees should be beholden to the NRA's approval? The NRA seems to think so: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201…
Can someone explain to me how gun registration would prevent criminals from committing gun crimes?

I'd really like to know.
Can we stop pretending that the "gun lobby" or the "NRA lobby" is some all-powerful group which influences all of Washington?

All things considered, barely 4 million dollars in 2012 was spent, which does not put this issue even close to the middle rankings for national lobbies. So either this is the most vicious, efficient, and well-run lobbies in history, or there is something else at work.

Politicians do not touch this issue becuase it is a losing issue come election time. It is a losing issue because people stop caring about it until the next massacre, and then stop caring a week or so later. Older, rural people always vote, and rural, older people tend to like guns more.

Blaming the "gun lobby" is just a redirect so that we do not have to blame ourselves for our refusal to demand real gun control and hold politicians accountable. It is nice to blame dark, evil figures for our own failings, but it does not get us anywhere.

I am not trying to say that the money spent does not help the gun industry, but 4 million dollars is complete peanuts, and does not have anything against the will of the voters, which is apparently very weak on this issue.
You know, you actually almost got it right there, @56. Except for one very small thing: The will of the voters is very strong. And they don't want more gun control.

Loche was very influential , his work was even lifted for the declaration of independence. However I do not recall Loche being one of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were pretty sparkling clear on how they felt about the correlation between firearms and liberty.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison

As for 42
5280 already nailed it.

Besides the FBI already collects data on gun violence, as does every law enforcement agency in the nation, we don’t need a UW pet project to do it.

The ATF is an antigun law enforcement agency that is corrupt to it’s core and needs to be dissolved.

Here is our local ATF head agent, who enforces gun law despite not knowing how to insert a magazine into the rifle, confiscating toy guns.

Well at least he hasn't matched the ATFs usual incompetence that leads to murdering civilians.


Survey says!... 90% want to close the gun show loophole. Even the majority of gun owners want background checks at gun shows. Over 60% want to ban high capacity magazines. Only the assault weapons ban is near a wash; close to the margin of error.

But wait. What is this about? The Second Amendment? Or the will of the voters? Because we all know which direction the will of the voters is trending.
Even if the voters repealed the 2nd amendment it would not take away the right to keep and bear arms.

It is a natural right that exist regardless of government.

And there you have it. Finally a tiny bit of honesty after all these lies.

Gun nuts don't believe in democracy. They don't believe in the Constitution, or the constitutional process. They don't believe in America. They're nihilists who love only one thing: their guns.
No, it just proves (once again) that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

Then what are you in such a tizzy over? Worried that laws you think the voters all oppose will pass? Laws which you say are meaningless anyway? You seem pretty worked up over purely cosmetic laws that won't pass.

You need to act a lot less desperate if you want to peddle that line.