I know you have all probably read about the disgruntled student shooting up the Oikos school, but how many caught the California Brady Campaign's spokesperson comments afterwards?

"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_20336362/californias-tough-gun-laws-could-not-prevent-east

So, it wasn't a failure of laws, and she recognizes that "their" gun laws could not have stopped something like this from happening, but I am sure she and her group will continue pushing for more citizen disarmament laws. Idiots! 

"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."

And her next (unstated or maybe unreported) thought was probably, "Therefore, we must have tougher laws, or ban guns entirely."

I wouldn't take that statement quoted in the news article with too much delight and joy.  It rather sounds (to me) like it was reported out of context.  It is clear that the ultimate policy of almost all gun control advocates is to ban guns entirely. 

I also wish the reporter had mentioned that dealers at gunshows are required to do a background check, although that statement is not the whole truth:  where private sales between residents of that State at gun shows are permitted, face-to-face transactions do not need to go through a background check under Federal law.  His statement was:

Background checks, waiting periods
Federal law: Requires instant background checks on handgun purchases; no waiting period required; gun shows are exempted.

 
A minor point that was omitted was that with one in the chamber, using an 8-shot magazine will give you nine shots the first time around.  Virtually irrelevant, but I didn't want folks to jump all over that tiny point.

Terry, 230RN

I wouldn't take that statement quoted in the news article with too much delight and joy.  It rather sounds (to me) like it was reported out of context.  It is clear that the ultimate policy of almost all gun control advocates is to ban guns entirely.

It is sometimes difficult to convey the normal conversational nuances, so let me be clear: it wasn't delight and joy, it was amazement and contempt. I have no doubt that their ultimate goal is total disarmament. It may have been taken out of context, but I suspect it was more of an unscripted attempt to respond to that reporter's question. A response that seems all too logical, except it goes against all the mind-control, brainwashing (can we say that now since Holder's old video came out??) attempts to pursuade the American public that we'd all be safer if everybody, except the police, were armed.

^ OK.

I wasn't pointing at you when I said "I wouldn't take that statement quoted in the news article with too much delight and joy," just "the reader" in a general sense. 

"...but I suspect it was more of an unscripted attempt to respond to that reporter's question."

OK, I was hypothesizing what was going on in her mind too. Your theory sounds better than mine.  No worries.



Terry, 230RN
 

230RN, no problem.....I wasn't offened or concerned.....just clarifying. Aloha