Friday, March 9, 2012

Isn't That The Definition of Insanity?

You know, performing the same motion over and over and over with the expectation of different results? There's a touch of it in Seattle, apparently...

State Supreme Court agrees that Seattle can't itself ban guns
The State Supreme Court Thursday refused to review Seattle's ban on guns in parks and community centers, upholding two lower court rulings that the ban violated state law.

Gun-rights advocates praised the decision, noting state law expressly prohibits cities from adopting their own gun regulations.
Yet the mayor of Seattle insists on trying it over and over anyways. He's going to keep banning guns no matter how many times the State Supreme Court tells him he can't! But but but! GUNS R BAD! is about the most cogent article that hizzoner can come up with, and utters such laughable lines as:
"A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said.
Because no one ever gets assaulted in a park, right? Moron.

While I'm glad to see that the WA State Supreme Court took this imbecile to the woodshed (Lemme guess, he's a member of Mayors Committing Crimes, err, Against Illegal Guns), it's unfortunate that it keeps happening. We often tout our progress on the journey to wider gun rights - as we should - but we should always be mindful of how far we have left to go...

In any case, Seattle will become a lot smarter when Mayor McGinn is "former mayor" McGinn...

That is all.

9 comments:

Dave H said...

We see that a lot in New York. Downstate Democrats (generally rookies in the legislature - it must be a hazing ritual) present bills to illegalize pre-ban guns and magazines, require microstamping, limit magazines to 5 rounds, make pretty much everyplace "gun free" zones, etc. Usually these things die in committee before they ever reach a floor vote, let alone being challenged in court.

But man, I'd love a way to say "I told you twice already, no!" and make them stand in the corner if they keep trying.

Stretch said...

Even when he's the ex-mayor Seattle will still be as stupid. This is, after all, the city that has this statue in a major square - http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/9056

Old NFO said...

Yep DEMOCRAT groundhogs... :-)

Phssthpok said...

See also:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.80.010 (Official Misconduct)

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.070 (Coercion)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110 (Definitions)


Why are these people not in jail?

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, huh.

My pistol is legal. Does that mean they will recognise my Texas CHL?

They even lie in the name of their organization.

MAJ Mike

Daniel in Brookline said...

David:

Remember a show called "Chicago Hope"? There was a minor returning character, a judge, who had no patience for frivolous lawsuits. He would berate a lawyer in open court, saying "Counselor, why on Earth did you let this case get this far?" He would then threaten the lawyer with contempt, unless he stood up and pronounced loudly to the entire courtroom, "I am a toad".

(It's the sort of thing that happens on television and not here in the world, unfortunately.)

We wind up with an interesting dichotomy here, don't we? -- between the people who say "I feel unsafe in a park where guns are permitted" and the people who say "I feel safer in a park because I can carry my gun" (or even "I feel safer in a park because I know there are law-abiding citizens carrying concealed").

Of course, as always, Hizzoner the Mayor is only trying to ban the legal guns. Criminals, being outside the law by definition, won't be stopped by passing yet another law. Using the law to prevent violent crime is like trying to saw wood with a butter knife; it's simply not the appropriate tool for the job.

What IS the appropriate tool for the job? How about this, a plan liberals should be able to get behind. Suppose we have a special police force, licensed to carry firearms, that simply wander about, ready to stop violent crime as it happens. This force would not be uniformed, so it would blend in. It would have to be numerous, so that these people could be just about everywhere, and thus more likely to be on the spot when something bad goes down.

We could have such a force. We could even give these special plainclothes officers a name... say, "citizens".

Anonymous said...

I live in a suburb of Seattle. McGinn is the WORST mayor in the history of mayordom. He is so green he rides a bike to work - two blocks. He rides an SUV from his house until he's close to work, and then gets on his bike so people see him arrive on the bike.

You think you are Marooned in Mass. I'm Stuck in Seattle.

Anonymous said...

I live in a suburb of Seattle. McGinn is the WORST mayor in the history of mayordom. He is so green he rides a bike to work - two blocks. He rides an SUV from his house until he's close to work, and then gets on his bike so people see him arrive on the bike.

You think you are Marooned in Mass. I'm Stuck in Seattle.

Braden Lynch said...

@Daniel in Brookline

Great ideas.

I suggest that you give them the authority to determine the threat and shoot, instead of retreating.

I likewise suggest that you ensure that some of these "citizens" are frail and older people, attractive females, and people with obvious physical limitations, so that they will be targeted.

Oh wait, that is often the victim selection process.