Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Transcription of SB6396

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Post imported post

    This will be in parts, as I’m getting tired of typing… Part 1:
    Juliana Roe: *reads and introduces bill*

    Adam Kline [3:15]: My own reason for bringing this bill is to remove from commerce, eventually, over the course of years the most lethal weapons that we have legally to this day. We have already banned, at the federal level, we have already banned machine guns. This is a reasonable extension from that ban to ban certain semi-automatics that meet certain physical characteristics. The bill is patterned after the federal assault ban - assault weapon ban that was in effect at the federal level from 1994 to 2004. It's very much the same language, almost identical, changed where it has to be to adapt to state law. The bill simply bans a subset of semi-automatic weapons. That is, semi-automatic weapons clearly defined by their physical characteristics, as the federal ban did. Words can be so accurate. We write laws in words. This is not mathematical precision. What we are aiming after, as Congress did, is those semi-automatics that have such characteristics as a pistol grip before the trigger, a barrel shroud; that have characteristics that make it more lethal than your ordinary deer rifle. And if you (lots of noise in audience interrupts Kline, I think people were pissed about how inaccurate that description was and yell out about it). Yeah I'm sorry it is. And by the way, if you feel that these words are inadequate, please feel free to offer _reasonable_ alternatives that make this ban more specific to guns that you might disagree, that you might feel are more lethal. If there is specific reasonable language that you want to offer, if you're testifying, please do. But I want you to know that I've asked the National Rifle Association to do that, and they've refused. The idea being somehow that words cannot describe a particular class of weapons. Let me tell you about two people. One is a young man, lived in my district, aged 17, who was murdered in July by another young man using an assault weapon. His name is Aaron Sullivan; his mother, Dr. Deborah Sullivan, is going to be testifying today. And I'm going to ask that you maintain a certain dignity in this room and accord her the honor of a woman whose son recently died. I think we need civility here and I think we need to take this seriously. The other is officer Tim Brenton, killed a few blocks away on Halloween, a few months, three months, after this murder of Aaron Sullivan. Also by an assault weapon. Someone who clearly wanted to execute actually two officers, officer Brenton and another trainee. There have been very few murders before that, but the federal ban expired five years ago, it's now true that guns are becoming available in commerce. Some months ago I went to a shooting range in Black Diamond with Senator Roach and shot with Senator Roach, and shot oh I don't want to say maybe a couple dozen rounds. Maybe more than a couple dozen, it was probably a bunch of rounds from a variety of things. One was an AR 15, there was a few other weapons, the models of which I forget. All of them were as I recall guns that would have been banned, will be banned by this bill. At that range I was very, very impressed, favorably impressed, by the safety consciousness, conscientious attitude of the people involved. A safety officer is required when any shooting takes place. There are signs all over saying "Please, keep your children away from the range." Every effort was made to maintain safety. It was responsibility incarnate. It was perfect. All I am asking from our state legislators, my colleagues, and from members of the community that is, that favors gun rights is to use that sense of responsibility, that conscientiousness, about a different problem, and that is the problem of to whose hands these guns go. It's not just conscientious people, as you can tell from the experience in my district. There's an arms race going on, just like the arms race in the 1950s 60s and 70s. If the Soviets get this missile, we feel we need to get this missile. Now criminals are getting assault weapons; we now, understandably, feel we need to have assault weapons for self-defense. I understand that, I get that, it's human nature. Why, then, I ask, do we allow assault weapons to be in commerce in the first place causing this arms race? So be it, I think that's sufficient. We have witnesses who can speak more eloquently than I, on both sides, so let's get to them.

    Roach [8:55]: I have a question

    Kline: Senator Roach

    Roach: Does the time start now?

    Kline: Yes

    Roach: Okay, and just for the record, and I want you to understand how much I appreciate your being fair, but when I did, when we did hear when I was chair initiative 200 I took the people in um, the percentage of those that appeared one way or another and the room was hugely in favor of your side of the position. Just for - and we only heard it that way - and I think you sent me a very nice note afterward saying what a fair I had done, and you're trying to be fair a little bit differently. I let them testify in order of how many versus how many. So, for our purposes today, just let me allow this. How many of you are here today opposed to this bill. Could you please raise your hand if you're opposed to this bill? I want the crowd to see this. I'd like the press to see this. These are the people that are here, and please go out in the hallway there will be a whole bunch of others. Because the majority, probably, I'm looking at that, 98% of the people here today are opposed to this bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Kline [9:50]: Sure. Um, anyway, we have a number of people to testify on both sides. Let me start first with the woman I mentioned before, Dr. Deborah Sullivan. I believe is in the audience. *looking around* I know she's... here somewhere, if she's not, we'll skip over her for now. *crowd points and answers* I'm sorry? *question* We're on the assault weapons bill. Okay, is Dr. Sullivan in the room? Oookay, why don't we wait for her to get, if somebody could go get her, I'd appreciate it. *time passes* Dr. Sullivan, could you just identify yourself for the record?

    Dr Sullivan [11:21]: Deborah Renetta Sullivan.

    Kline: Dr. Sullivan, do you have something you want to say.

    Dr Sullivan [11:24]: Yes. I am here because my son, Aaron Sullivan, was killed in July by an assault weapon. He was killed by another young man, a 19 year old, and my feeling on this is that we have laws that protect our children from tobacco and from narcotics and from alcohol and we determine when they can drive and when they can vote, and I would just love to see us take some responsibility in protecting our young people from assault weapons. Because they are impulsive and it was an impulse action that resulted in the death of my son. And if young people are impulsive and we know that I would like to just see us take some action to be able to keep our children safe and keep assault weapons out of the hands of our most vulnerable young people. Thank you.

    Kline [12:26]: Any questions for Dr. Sullivan? (none) Thank you Dr. As I understand it, the weapon that was used to kill your son is not yet available or is not yet known. Do you know what the model of that weapon was?

    Dr Sullivan: No, I don't

    Kline [12:44]: Other comments, questions?... I want to thank you for coming forward and I appreciate your personal strength in testifying today.

    Dr Sullivan: You're welcome

    Kline: Okay, I'd like to have somebody. I know there are a number of people who have signed in who are opposed to the bill, and I'd certainly like to hear from somebody. And let me ask, is either Murton Cooper or Mrs Cooper present in the room? I know Mr Cooper likes to be heard on this matter and I'll make sure he is if he's come as far as he usually does. I'm going to call somebody then...the first person on the sign in sheets.

    Roach: Mr Chairman? If I could be so humble here as to ask if we could have a few people that represent some of the larger groups of second amendment supporters so that they can sum up and use our time wisely?

    Kline: Sure

    Roach: Thank you very much, maybe there are three of them -

    Kline: -anybody who's a leader of an organization that's been designated to testify?

    Roach: Mr Judy I know and he probably has two friends, at least, I would think.

    Kline: Brian, if you want to come up?

    Roach: He doesn't have two friends, Brian? *chuckles* And Jim Williams might be here. I know Klaus Mai would like to. I mean, Dave Workman, absolutely ..

    Kline: By the way, I only called Brian. You're a photographer?

    Dave Workman: No, I'm only packing this thing (camera) because I didn't want to leave it back there on the chair.

    Kline: Yeah yeah, I'm pulling people up off the sign in sheet, but Senator prince, as a courtesy to her, er, Senator Roach, as a courtesy to her we're going to have Brian testify. Go ahead.

    Brian Judy [14:40]: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Brian Judy. I am the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association. I'm here testifying in opposition to this bill on behalf of our 92,000 Washington NRA members. In this day and age of bro-24 hour news, I want to give you a bit of breaking news that you probably won't hear in a Washington media, and that is that 70 million gun owners didn't break the law today. Millions didn't break the law with firearms that are classified as assault weapons under this bill. This bill is unconstitutional, it's arbitrary, it won't reduce crime, and it will divert scarce law enforcement resources. I'm going to try and be real brief and just gloss over these points and give other people opportunity to speak. Not only does it violate the state right to keep and bear arms provision, article 1 section 24, but it's a gross violation of the 4th amendment. Allowing Sheriffs to come into peoples’ homes-

    Kline: -excuse me, Brian, but you and I discussed that bill, there would be an amendment taking that out. There is no purpose in having that clause. Feel free to disregard that

    Brian Judy: Yeah, well right now it's still in there. It will not reduce crime. Over 99% of gun owners are law abiding. The less than 1 percent that misuse firearms, use firearms that are characterized as these types of weapons less than 1% of the time. Witness Maurice Clemmons who killed four police officers in Lakewood with a .38 special revolver and a stolen nine millimeter pistol, and also realize he killed four police officers firing eight rounds. So, consider that when you're considering a ten round magazine limitation. It will do nothing for crime. It will divert, the bill will divert scarce law enforcement resources: the sheriffs could likely spend the rest of their careers searching law abiding citizens' homes. This bill has definitional problems. The chairman mentioned that the NRA refused to give language; I would characterize it as - it's impossible to give language. As I told the sponsor, you can ban all semi-automatic firearms or you can ban none of them, but if you try to carve out some arbitrary subset what you're going to end up with is a confusing and utterly ineffective nightmare of law and regulation. Witness California banned a law 20 years ago on so-called assault weapons; 20 years later all we've experienced is clean-up legislation, litigation, and proliferation of these firearms. That's one of the main things that these bills cause is people to go out and buy these firearms. These guns are everywhere in California. You can pull out newspapers and there are ads for these guns for sale everywhere. Arguably, as you've heard, the focus of this bill is to find some measure of lethality. Pistol grips have nothing to with lethality. Magazine detachability - firearms with detachable magazines have been around for a century, it's common for use in self-defense firearms. Again, it's either evil or it's not - ban them all or don't ban any of them. Don't try to play in the middle, you're just going to end up with a disastrous situation. Magazine capacity - arbitrary and meaningless. A concealed pistols license holder with a self-defense firearm and 10 round magazine with 11 rounds in it - he's a felon. Criminal takes two 10 round magazines - he's fine. Let me just conclude by saying this bill will sow confusion, not control. Other states and federal law have resulted in, again, three outcomes: rampant confusion, unjust prosecution, and increased sales. Everybody loses with this bill. I appreciate the time to speak.

    Kline [18:20]: Brian, I have a question for you and possibly others do. You and I had a little legal discussion yesterday where you and I talked about the case of DC, District of Columbia versus Heller, a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the District of Columbia's total ban, which it rightfully found unconstitutional. But let me read you some language before you call this ban unconstitutional. And this is quoting now from the majority opinion. "Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone to the 19th century cases, commentators and the court routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose." ...and then citing some cases... "For example, the majority of 19th century courts to consider the question considered that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the second amendment, or state analogues" ...again citing more cases, and these are state cases, and go on... "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and governmental buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the conditional sale of arms." Isn't that a fairly clear and concise of laws like this?

    Brian Judy [19:51]: I don't think it's a validation of laws like _this_. Clearly the court has always ruled that reasonable regulations are allowed, and as you pointed out, provisions restricting felons or other ineligible people. But to take away legitimate firearms from law abiding citizens. I don't think it is covered. And, again, the Washington state constitution, article 1 section 24, is even more clear, it's explicit; it's an individual right, and it's for self-defense. Period.

    Roach: Mr Chairman, I have a question for him.

    Kline: Before we go, Senator Roach has a question, and then we'll go to the next witness. Just so you all understand, this is an invitation by the US Supreme Court, to state legislatures, to pass reasonable, safety-conscious restrictions on the nature of the people allowed to own, and the nature of the guns themselves, and that's very explicit from the words I just read. Senator Roach.

    More to come...

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    , Washington, USA

    Post imported post

    pam roach is my hero.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Post imported post

    Part 2. I ended on the most hypocritical line ever from Kline
    Code tags because timestamps were being lost
    Roach [21:00]: Let me ask a question. How many of you that are gun owners have given your fingerprints, your thumbprints, to the federal government before you could get a gun? How many? Everbody?! Senator Kline, we have been vetted very very well. The question I have for Mr. Judy is this. We did have a very fun day we went out to the Black Diamond Gun Club. Well, I think we had a good time and included Senator Kline and were very happy we could come out. At that time we had a display, and because I'm not so good on what they were. You called on of them a range rifle and I don't know if the other one was an AK47. You took the mechanism, the working mechanism, out of one and the other and switched them, put them in. Could you describe to Senator Kline, again, what that was and that maybe we're talking about cosmetics more than actual functioning of a firearm.
    Brian Judy [21:42]: Yeah thank you. I passed out a flier that hopefully you all have, and it talks about the cosmetic changes about this cosmetic legislation. The firearm that is in this display is a Ruger Mini-14. It is also called a ruger ranch rifle. And a lot of people will look at this picture and say "well, the gun on the bottom is an assault rifle or an assault weapon, and that needs to be restricted; the gun on the top is a sporting firearm." Well, in fact, as indicated by the serial number, that is the same firearm. The guts of that firearm, the action is exactly the same, and all that's changed is the cosmetic features. And that's what I point out when I point out the arbitrary sumset and the confusion. You try to ban firearms like the one on the bottom, well, you change the cosmetic appearance on it, and make it look like the one on the top, and it's not banned. Well, what sense does that make?
    Kline: Senator Roach, if you have a statement, let's keep this reasonably...
    Roach: Well, if you want to give me another one I'll ask another question, but I think we should move on
    Kline: We would like to get on
    Roach: No I'm good
    Kline: Okay, thank you. Going on to the next witness in favor of the bill, Ralph Facatelli representing ceasefire
    Ralph [23:25]: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ralph Facatelli and I probably represent Washington's Ceasefire. We are a statewide citizen activists group of 5,000 members dedicated to one thing. Reducing gun violence in Washington state. And it may suprise some people in this room, but we accept the recent ruling of the US Supreme Court that validated the second amendment and the right to bear arms. In that ruling conservative justice Anthony Scalia stated that few rights, including the second amendment, are in fact, limited, and that military grade weapons are not provided with second amendment protection. We have a public health crisis in our state. In the last decade, more Washingtonians were killed by firearms than all US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. I am here to tell you that guns do kill people. That research by the Harvard School of Public Health show that gun deaths correlate directly with the number of guns in society.We Americans are no more violent than other countries, but because of guns we are far more lethal. The incidence of rape, burglary, and assault is the same in Seattle as it is in Vancouver, BC, yet we have four times the number of deaths because we have four times the number of guns. And no firearm has a greater lethal capacity than semi-automatic assault weapons. This weapon was responsible for a mass shooting of 27 people in Spokane in 1994 by a 21 year old man with a clean criminal record. This gun was also for the death of young, 18 year old Aaron Sullivan by another man with no criminal record, as well as the death of officer Tim Brenton of the Seattle police force, again by a man with no criminal record. In fact, according to FBI data, 24% of police killed in the line of duty are killed by semi-automatic assault weapons. Many crimes are committed by angry, disturbed individuals without a criminal records who turn deadly in a moment of rage when they have access to weapons of war such as these assault weapons. It is an insult to victims like Aaron Sullivan and Timothy Brenton to split hairs over what is or what isn't a semi-automatic assault weapons. If it holds more than 10 bullets in my mind it is. If it automatically loads and discharges bullets it is. And if its original design and intent was to kill many humans and not animals, it is. We need to come to come together to find a balance between personal freedom we all in this room care about, and public safety. The tragedy of gun violence is preventable but will not go away on its own. It requires the courage of all elected officials. Polling by Washington Ceasefire and Mayor Bloomberg and his group of mayors shows that a large majority of state voters, and even many gun rights proponents favor common-sense legislation such as this one. The hard core of this group may win this fight, today, but it's a short-sighted victory, that sadly comes at a great cost to the citizens of this state. Thank you.
    Kline [26:40]: Thank you, before we get into questions I just want to clarify something. You mentioned if it reloads automatically it is a semi-automatic assault weapon. Just so you know, not all semi-automatics qualify for this ban.
    Ralph: No, I meant all those three characteristics, collectively.
    Kline: Right, it has to be semi-automatic and meet the requirements of the federal law. It has to have those 5 physical characteristics. I... This is my first question and I'm sure others may have their own questions. You referred to people who are not here today. Earlier there was a showing of who's in favor and who is not. It is not just the people who are here today but these and people not here today are voters. They elect us, and they are the final arbiters. You have some polling data that you alluded to at the end?
    Ralph: Yeah, we do
    Kline: Could you refer to that?
    Ralph: We did a poll of 600 Washington state voters done by an independent group, Evan McDunnum, shows that 80% of Washington voters are in favor of banning these assault weapons, including a plurality of NRA member households. That data was also correlated by a national poll that showed that 78% of Americans want the ban of semi-automatic assault weapons. This legislation is also favored by the international association of chiefs of police.
    Roach: Mr Chairman
    Kline: Senator Roach
    Roach: Thank you. I think the ultimate best poll would be the poll of the people. And we had an initiative that was here in Washingtion a number of years ago. Who here can tell me what it was, 677? (crowd answers 676) 676 and there was a huge battle in the media, in the bought press, and there was a huge campaign. The people of Washington showed, the real people we should be polling here, didn't want your gun bans. They wanted the freedom to protected themselves and their families. They wanted to be able to be sportsmen and women. They wanted to be able to target shoot if they want. They wanted to be able to hunt, and what you want to do here is really in opposition to what the people of the state of Washington have already stated through a very well fought campaign, and the bad guys lost to this.
    Ralph: I can't speak to that (clapping in crowd disrupts him) initiative -
    Kline: This is not entertainment, I'm sorry
    Ralph: -it was years ago and has nothing to do with the bill put forth today.
    Roach: Well, it most certainly did in terms of a poll and how people feel-
    Kline: Senator, this is question and answer period, it is not time-
    Ralph: That initiative had nothing to do with the banning of semi-automatic assault weapons here today.
    Senator Carrell: Mr Chairman
    Kline: Senator Carrell you had a question?
    Carrell: Thank you. Do you approve of the bill as written?
    Ralph: I am in general approval of the bill, and it's not a perfect bill and no bill is a perfect bill and I think it's a bill that will reduce gun deaths in this state.
    Carrell: Do you also support and approve of the search and seizure portion of this, which as I simply read the US Constitution article (sic) 4
    Kline: As I mentioned to Mr Judy, that was included by mistake and that language will not be in 
    Carrell: So you do not approve of that either?
    Kline: Correct. That language will be out of here. Other questions? Hearing none. Thank you. The first person to sign up, and I'm certain it was someone who was here earliest this morning, and I'm going to accord to him the next spot is Bill Pierce, citizen from 98366. There will bill one more witness from each side, then we can go on to the next bill.
    Pierce: Thanks for your time, good to see Pam Roach here. You know, legislation like this necessarily impungns the characters of gun owners at large, and we don't like it a bit. Okay, first of all. Of necessity, legislation is basically telling other people how to live, and I read a little bit about your background, you seem like a smart guy, I imagine you're a sincere guy, okay, you're a former SDS member and you seem to be proud of that, you mention it in your bio. You're a national abortion rights activist league contributor and defender, and I would suggest to you that the lifestyle you're supporting in that takes more far more innocent lives every year than any of the people sitting behind me today. First of all... Second of all, when I was fifteen years old and I joined the NRA, my father told me that there are people sitting up day and night thinking of ways to circumscribe your rights, and I didn't think that was possible. But as I grew older, I met people like you, who sit there with intense smugness and arrogance and tell us that we're clapping because this is entertainment, and it's not.
    Kline: Pierce, excuse me, please stick to the merits of the bill. One way or another, tell us what you feel about the bill, not about me.
    Pierce: No, no, because this is to the point. You're sitting there in superior judgment to everybody out here and telling us that you can make things safer.
    Kline: Hold on *gavel strike* This is not about me or any other legislator. It's about legislation. If you want to talk about policy, absolutely, that's what you're here for.
    Unknown Senator: Mr Pierce, I would ask that you speak to the bill. Lack of merit, if that's what it is.
    Pierce: Okay, I'll try to ... 
    Unknown Senator: You're here to talk to me too, and not just the chair
    Pierce: I'm not familiar with your name being on the bill. I didn't see it
    Unknown Senator: It's not on the bill, that's why I want to hear what you have to say, rather than to impugn our chair.
    Pierce: Very good, no, then, uh. The relevance is this: we elect people to serve us, not to dictate to us, first of all. Second of all, the empirical data was already provided by the fellow from the NRA. The fraction of a fraction of deaths that occur and god bless the poor lady and her son Aaron, and I'll include her family in my prayers tonight, but the fact is, you're talking about a fraction of a fraction. The way people operate, who chew away at our freedoms, incrementally, and we're not gonna have it, period.
    Kline: Thank you very much. The next and final witness is the police chief of the city of Bellevue, Linda Pillo. 
    Roach: Mr Chair
    Kline: Do you have a question?
    Roach: I'm keeping track of who's speaking and how many minutes, this would be an odd number, would this person be giving advantage to the pro or the con?
    Kline: Oh sure then we'll have one more you're right....
    Pillo [33:55]: Good morning senators, my name is Linda Pillo, and although I am the Bellevue police chief, I am here today representing myself and my personal opinions regarding my law enforcement background. Three years ago the international association of the chiefs of police teamed up with Joyce foundation to hold a policy summit identifying ways to reduce gun violence. What resulted was a report recommending common sense strategies. The IACP also recommended law enforcement leaders throughout our nation to take a stand against gun violence and work with their officers and their communities to stop the nearly 30,000 lives that are lost every year to gun violence. This is a number far higher than any other developed country. Since 1990, more American lives have been lost to gun violence than in all the combats fought during the 20th century. One of the recommendations that came out of the IACP summit was to reduce the availibility and lethality of firearms to criminals. And FBI analysis found that 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1991 and 2008 were killed with weapons that can be defined as assault weapons. Because of current restrictions on the release of ATF trace data, it's impossible to know how many assault weapons are used today. But we do know that just three months ago, Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton was shot to death and officer Brett Sweeny was injured by a killer using an assault weapon. Another dramatic example of why assault weapons should be banned happened back in 1997 when _ten_ Los Angeles officers were injured during a bank robbery. The officers were _completely_ outgunned because the suspects were using assault weapons. This example shows how quickly a killer can spray a lethal volley of bullets using this type of weapon. Another horrific incident happened in 2002 when a sniper held citizens in Washington DC under seize, randomly killing ten, and critically injuring three, during a twenty day killing spree. Assault weapons can also easily be converted to fully automatic machine guns. Every time a shooting occurs, law enforcement is called. Officers risk their lives to protect their community. Since October, six officers are dead and two are injured from gun fire. I've never experienced so much gun violence in all my 31 years that I've served. I'm heartbroken that these brave public servants are no longer with us protecting their communities. I urge you to support this bill as one way to help protect our officers and our community. Law enforcement officers cannot do it alone, we need elected officials to act in the overall public interest and help reduce gun violence in Washington state. Thank you very much for your time.
    Kline: Thank you. Questions?
    Roach: Yes, I have a question.
    Kline: Senator Roach
    Roach: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and we take opposite sides, but my son in law is a member of law enforcement. He's, of course, the father of my grandchildren and I want you to know that I care about law enforcement also, we see things a bit differently. Law enforcement I know, they want people to protect themselves, because they can't be there every time every minute. But the question was this: you say you want to ban certain guns here, because of the issue of "lethality." Could you tell me which guns are lethal and which guns are not?
    Pillo: What I'm talking about is the assault weapons, what is defined as assault weapons, and I completely agree with you - 
    Roach: What is more or less lethal about those firearms that are defined in this bill as being assault weapons than any other firearm that is not defined in this bill as being an assault weapon. What is the difference in lethality between the two?
    Pillo: Because of the multiple rounds that can be fired in seconds.
    Roach: How many rounds does it take to kill a person or a deer or anything? How many rounds would it take?
    Pillo: I'm just talking about assault weapons today, and I completely -
    Roach: The answer is one.
    Pillo: completely agree with you about the second amendment rights. I agree with you about the right to bear arms, that any law abiding citizen. 
    Roach: You mentioned lethality and I don't think you've been able to define the difference between these weapons here that you would think would be okay and those that are not.
    Kline: Senator, this is not an argument, if you have an argument this is not the time for arguments.
    Roach: That was a question
    Kline: Further comments in answer to Senator Roach's...? I would point out that it takes one round to kill somebody, 10 rounds can kill 10 people, that's the difference. *points at Carrell* You had a question?
    Roach: I have a question. There was a report that was done about 15 years by a Mr James Gosery. He was the senate intern to the then State senator ken pulland. And what he researched his several months here on campus was how many lives were actually saved versus those that were taken - illegally of course, because these people were stealing and such. How many lives were saved versus how many were taken, do you know the answer to that, the proportion? 
    Pillo: I don't know about that study.
    Roach: There are some studies at the University of Florida, also, gave what was probably a more professional study - we thought ours was pretty good - and who can tell me, was it 19-100 to one people have their lives saved because of firearm ownership, possession, and the ability to protect themselves versus those that are in the category of suicide, or murder.
    Kline: Senator, this is not the time for floor speeches
    Roach: Well, she didn't know the answer
    Pillo: And again, I agree with you about the right to bear arms, we're talking specifically about assault weapons today.
    Kline: Thank you. Last witness, I know Mr Murton Cooper has been at almost every hearing
    Roach: What about Dave Workman, I'd like to have him answer questions that were brought up by this particular
    Kline: Senator, she was trying to answer your questions and I think she made a good faith effort. Badgering a witness while she's trying to answer -
    Roach: I wasn't badgering, I was trying to show...
    Kline: Simply because you disagree is not within our usual rules
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts