The Usual Suspects: the Elitist Forces Behind Gun Control in Washington State

Dr. Matt Barreto

 

It is critical vision alone which can mitigate the unimpeded operation of the automatic. - Marshall McLuhan

By Lou Saboter

A gun control measure is being cynically peddled by Dr. Matt Barreto as a reasonable response to the Marysville Pilchuck shooting despite the fact that it would do nothing to prevent another such incident. Two gun control initiatives are on the ballot in Washington state, I-591 and I-594. The first, I-591, would stop any new background checks. I-594 would require new background checks including at gun shows, online, and only excluding family gifts and antique sales. It would also deny gun ownership to felons, including those who had been found guilty of assault due to drunk driving.

At around 10:39 pm on October 24, 2014, Jaylen Fryberg supposedly stood up in a cafeteria at Marysville Pilchuck High School and gunned down several students before turning the weapon on himself. Within hours of the Marysville Pilchuck shooting, a Huffpost article appeared noting it would affect the vote of gun control measures in Washington.

On October 28, the Seattle PI noted a poll was being conducted for KCTS-9 primarily by two University of Washington investigators: Matt Barreto and Christopher Parker. In the article, Matt Barreto noted:

“The spate of unconscionable school shootings across the country, and now here in Marysville, has left voters ready to take responsible action on gun issues,” Barreto said.  “We saw the same thing in 2012-2013 following the Newtown killings. There was widespread public support for background checks, however, the U.S. Congress failed to get anything done.”

Barreto's statement shows heavy bias and has little to do with any measurable reality. This statement links gun control directly to school shootings, despite the fact that the gun control measure, I-594, would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting which occurred at Marysville Pilchuck. Fryberg did not purchase the gun, nor was he a felon or mentally unstable.  Similarly, a gun control bill such as this, if passed in Connecticut previous to the Newtown event, would not have prevented that situation as it was reported.

How is it that a professor completely lacks logic? Why would an educated man push an irrational emotional response as a rationale?

What is also ignored is that mass shootings have not been on the increase, and account for less than 100 deaths a year.  Also, violent crime is decreasing nationwide. So, why this push for background checks? Could it be about the power of the elite? Is that why Bill Gates, his cronies at Microsoft, and the Bloomberg Group, have invested millions to push this bill.

Bill Gates and former Mayor Bloomberg have taken to meeting, along with Jeb Bush, Warren Buffett and Oprah at a private gated island: Kiawah, South Carolina. The May 13, 2013 meeting was hosted by Bill Gates who is an advocate of eugenics, which is the control of population through various means including abortion, sterilization, and, in Gates own words, vaccination. A goal of these groups have no been believed to be the formation of a one world government, and the disarmament of citizens in order to facilitate a transition to one world government is a possible motivation here.

Another interesting thing about Matt Barreto is that, while he here apparently supports IDing those who would purchase guns, he is simultaneously opposed to voter ID laws on the grounds that it could disproportionately affect Latinos, whom he lumps together with other minority groups. What he neglects to add is that there are many Latinos who are not American citizens, and they are enabled to vote by a lack of voter ID laws.

All of which begs the question: were the people Barreto polled American citizens?

If Barreto is OK with the IDing of those practicing their 2nd Amendment rights, why shouldn't we ID those who practice their right to vote?

Are we going to allow foreigners to vote away our 2nd Amendment rights?