NRA continues to hold dominion over Virginia

Guest Post by Morbo

After the Virginia Tech massacre, I wrote a post predicting that the horrific incident would do nothing to change our gun policy. I secretly hoped I’d be proven wrong. Sadly, it looks like I won’t.

In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation closing a loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing a background check. This should be a no-brainer after what happened, but still the measure failed.

Reported The Washington Post:

Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a “lie-in,” lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year.

Some of the survivors offered compelling personal testimony. Colin Goddard, 22, who survived the shootings and is now a senior at the school, cut to the chase when he said: “People tell me I am alive because of God or luck or a bunch of other stuff. I don’t know how much I can accept any of those, but one thing I can’t accept is that it was just criminals being criminals and I was just caught in the wrong situation at the wrong time.”

Amazingly, several gun nuts attended this event with weapons strapped on their hips. That’s right — in Virginia, it is legal to attend a public meeting of government representatives wearing a pistol. One complained that background checks are “onerous” because they can take as long as one day to complete.

At the hearing, some of the surviving students were approached by gun nuts who explained to them that had the students been armed, they could have taken out the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. These gun nuts are clearly disturbed — yet the legislature listens to them, not the families of those who were killed.

A panel of the Virginia House of Delegates had already voted down closing the loophole. The Senate hearing was an attempt to revive it, but on Wednesday the members of the Courts of Justice Committee voted it down 9-6. All seven Republicans on the committee voted against it, as did two Democrats.

To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people. Thus, the debate becomes whether people can have guns or not instead of what reasonable restrictions we can put in place to make sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns. I don’t want to take away the rifle your uncle Fred uses to hunt deer. I do want to make sure that a deranged person can’t go to a gun show, walk out with an assault rifle and head for the nearest middle school.

If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, then all hope for any sensible gun laws in that state is lost. As I said back in April, we are left to wait until some other deranged person decides to top Cho Seung-Hui’s grim record.

A Virginia delegate told me about one story where the NRA stood up to oppose a bill that would strip the right to own a gun from people convicted of torturing or molesting their own children. The NRA said that a person’s right to carry a gun should not turn on a single incident. To which he was asked “how many times should a person be able to torture their child before they lose the right to carry a gun?”

This latest defeat doesn’t surprise me at all if that is the mentality that we are dealing with.

  • The NRA said that a person’s right to carry a gun should not turn on a single incident.

    And yet the “right” to vote can be removed after a single incident.
    You have to admire the NRA for its finely focused tunnel vision. My favorite line was the day after John Lennon was shot a local DC TV newsguy went to NRA headquarters for a comment. The spokesman said if Lennon had been carrying a gun he would have “evened the odds.” The newsguy was either too dumb or too dumbstruck to point out Lennon was shot in the back.

  • I have two problems.

    I want to hire an employee and I want to buy a gun.

    I go to a gun dealer and show them my ID and they do an ‘instant’ background check on me and tell immediately that I am able to purchase the gun.

    I hire an employee and check his ID and send it off to Washington and about 6 weeks later I find out whether the person is legally able to work in the US

    With the gun purchase, they check if I have a criminal record, they check all sorts of other things, INSTANTLY

    With the new employee alll they do is check if the social security number matches the name.

    In the first case it is done INSTANTLY and they ‘never’ make a misteak.

    In the second case, it takes a long time and they often make mistakes.

    Does anyone else see a problem here?

  • you’re damn right it’s “onerous.” imagine the trauma of having to wait a whole day to get your artificial penis.

  • The policies of the Dominion of Virginia demostrate why we need a national standard for gun laws. What good does it do for my state of Maryland to try to have reasonable controlls on who owns a gun, when a person who is documented as mentally ill can drive across the Potomac and practically buy an Uzi out of a vending machine? Once again, the NRA proves that they are the ones who are nuts.

    NRA tools like Kay Bailey Hutchinson have repeatedly tried to overturn Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. She insists that people are actually safer if they are surrounded by people with guns.

    One thing about the people in Congress — from both parties — is that they can always be counted on to make sure that they have the best of things for themselves. They make sure that they have the best health coverage, the best pensions and the safest work environment. So if Sen. Huchinson and her collegues actually believed that they were safer if everyone arround them had a gun, you can bet that handguns would be handed out (at taxpayer expense of course) to everyone who entered her Senate Office Building.

    But that’s not the case. Every entrance of Sen. Hutchinson’s office is protected by security guards who man metal detectors — all intended to keep her safe from people with guns. If the pro-gun Senators were serious about their pro-gun rhetoric, they would arrange to have their all offices in the same building, one where everyone can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest.

  • I suspect uncle Fred (and many others) has a criminal record, the odd bar fight here, the occasional domestic violence charge for putting the misses in her place there. It probably isn’t the onerous 1-day waiting period for many of the protesters, it is the friend or relative who will no longer be able to buy weapons even though they don’t feel he is dangerous.

  • These posts demonstrate why the Democrat party has an up hill battle. As I understand the situation the guns were bought legally in Virginia. I am not against sane gun owner ship rules,but ther are to many in this party that wish to remove the right of ownership. Washington DC, NewYork ,Chicago are examples of right to own oliberated. I will not vote for these issues same as I won’t vote for HRC.

  • You are in a store, post office, or any other public place when a crazy walks in with a gun and starts shooting people. Now look yourself in the eye and say “I don’t want a gun.” If you do, you are a damn liar.

  • If the Virginia legislature were REALLY concerned about the past and future victims of criminal violence they would repeal all of the “Victim Disarmament Zones” AKA “Gun Free Zones” in the Commonwealth.

  • If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings […] — Morbo

    The argument here was that the VA tech killings had nothing to do with this particular law. Cho-Seung Hui didn’t buy his arsenal at a gun show, from an unlicensed vendor; he bought all his guns from several licensed ones. And, even though they — supposedly — did whatever the check is required — he fell trough the cracks, because his mental condition had not been reported in the places they’re supposed to check.

    Sure, I would love it if the vendors *at gun shows* were to operate under the same rules as the rest of them (and if those rules were *enforced*) — a valid VA license and a whatever (3-day, I think) waiting period. But I can also see where people would claim it’s “onerous”: not all vendors at gun shows are from VA and most gun shows last only one day.

    It could — and should — all be worked out; afterall, mail-order vendors ship US-wide, have to have licenses for every state and none of them complain. But conflating this law with VA Tech killings doesn’t do anyone any good, because the arguments are too easy to refute for lack of a logical connection.

  • What you folks need to grasp that it IS possible to oppose this legislation and not be nuts. There IS a logical argument against such legislation. I oppose it because I know that if this passes, there will be efforts after the next killing spree by a nut to ban all private gun transactions, such as in my garage or house. Now THAT I have a major problem with.

    This isn’t paranoia, guys. Private transactions are already banned in some states, and I don’t want it to happen here.

  • Well, Steve old buddy, power to the people!……the REAL people, not the LEOs or the Bush administration you seem so desperate to empower.

  • SteveT said:
    “NRA tools like Kay Bailey Hutchinson have repeatedly tried to overturn Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. She insists that people are actually safer if they are surrounded by people with guns.”

    Do they not call Washington DC “The murder Capital” If the ban worked so well why is the murder rate so high? Where right across the river where you can have guns the the murder rate is low.

    If you were a criminal would you think twice about robbing someone if you suspected that person might have a gun? Why do school shooters pick schools? Because they know no one will be able to defend themselves. Ever hear of a mass murderer going on a shooting rampage at a police department or a gun range?

  • There is no such thing as “baby steps” when it comes to compromising the Bill of Rights. It is not up for debate and not open to compromise. Any law which infringes on the freedom of law-abiding citizens to keep and bears arms is Unconstitutional. If you don’t like it, then repeal the Second Amendment. Otherwise, hands off.

  • The answer to armed criminals is not to go unarmed and hope for the best. That’s planned victimhood. If you choose that route, so be it. That’s your prerogative. But my choice is to carry a pistol on my hip, because it provides me with an effective means of defending myself, my wife, and my children, should I ever be faced with such a situation. I have a duty to protect them at all costs, and I will.

    The idea that some of our Constitutionally-challenged citizens would give up their liberty for the false notion of security is frightening. I suppose they must not have read Ben Franklin’s thoughts on the subject. What if the topic was not the 2nd Amendment, but the First or Fourth? Would they be so quick to give up those rights if our government promised them safety in return?

    As Americans, we enjoy far greater freedom than many other people on Earth, but that freedom comes with the understanding that some will choose to abuse their freedom for criminal purposes. We elect our leaders at regular intervals, unlike much of the world. Unfortunately, we must accept that voter fraud can and does happen, though infrequently. Should we give up on our electoral system because of it?

    In a nation of 300 Million, 80 Million of us own 240 Million firearms. That’s an awful lot of firearms, yet there were only 11,250 firearms-related homicides in 2004. As a percentage, that means 0.0000375% of us were murdered with guns. Does that tiny percentage really justify the 20,000 firearms laws we currently live under? I think not.

    Remember, it’s not just the laws we must consider, but the precedents they set. If we accept the erosion of freedoms we don’t value, we pave the way for eroding the freedoms we do. Maybe you don’t care about an Assault Weapons Ban because you don’t own any, or you don’t care about Right-To-Carry laws because you only own hunting rifles, but someday something you value may be headed for the legislative chopping block, and all because you didn’t bother to stand up and defend your neighbor’s rights to own something you don’t.

    Our rights were never meant to be negotiable.

  • David Robertson’s comment says it well. Are those of us who believe in taking personal responsibility for self defense really “gun nuts” for not passively accepting criminal assaults? Or are those calling us such names really just puling cowards who’d rather die huddled in a fetal position while awaiting rescue from “authorities” and shamed by those who defend themselves? In every instance where a school, mall, or church mass shooting has been halted prior to the attacker running out of ammo or victims, it’s been because at least one ordinary honest citizen had a gun and used it to stop the killings.

    To paraphrase Malakai Anielewizc who died in the Warswa Ghetto in 1943, we “gun nuts” feel it’s better to die, if at all, on our feet fighting back than on our knees (or curled up on the floor) sobbing and helpless.

    As for the so-called gunshow “loophole,” I have just two questions. Since when is the sale of legally owned private property by a private individual to another private individual a “loophole” to be regulated by the government? And just how would or could such a restriction on gun show sales be enforced without registering every gun and visitor to enter the show? I’ll bet the same panty-wetters crying about the failure to pass such a law are the same people who cry that monitoring international communications with known terrorists is an unConstitutional violation of a right to privacy found nowhere in the Constitution.

  • The “Gun Show” loophole is an urban myth thats been around a long time now. Anyone who does even a little research will disciver that the majority of vendors at gun shows who sell firearms are licensed dealers. If you think shouting “gun control” scares gun owners, what does screaming “gun show loophole” do to anti gun forces. BTW, I’m sorry there a little thing like a constitutional amendment that keeps you from seizing all the legally owned guns out there; and if you were to try, well lets just say we overthrew one tryannical government – I guess we could doit again.

    Just for the sake of argument though, if you want to add some gun laws I have a few suggestions:
    1 – Add mental health and Alcohol/Drug Rehab records to the instant check data base (Oops can’t violate HIPPA though can we?) (Bet you didn’t know the NRA suports this).

    2 – Amend the law so individuals can check a prospective buyer through the instant check IF they want to (NRA supports this too). Currently only licensed dealers can.

    3 – Remove the restrictions on where lawful permit holders can carry (i.e. Schools) to reduce the number of “Gun Free Zones.”

  • Oh, for cryin’ out loud!

    Just disarm evryone except the police and the military. After all, Lenin did it in…..oh, wait. that didn’t turn out so well.

    Well, Hitler did it and……..Crap! That didn’t work either.

    OK. Pol Pot had some success…..Geez!

    Just do it anyway. It’s bound to work sooner or later.

    Oh, the person who’d love to remove a gun fron our cold, dead fingers………You’re welcome to try anytime, tough-guy!

  • Ben Miner said:
    There is no such thing as “baby steps” when it comes to compromising the Bill of Rights. It is not up for debate and not open to compromise. Any law which infringes on the freedom of law-abiding citizens to keep and bears arms is Unconstitutional. If you don’t like it, then repeal the Second Amendment. Otherwise, hands off.

    Cool! I always wanted to play with a surface-to-air missle. It’d be great for hunting — even easier than Deadeye Dick Cheney bagging his flightless quail with a shotgun. And a small nuclear weapon would be great for clearing brush. Plus no one would break into my house if I had large radiation symbols posted on all the doors.

    What!? You say I can’t own those things? Even if I’m just a “collector”? Then I guess the Second Amendment has already been compromised. So all we have to do is come to some agreement on what kind of restrictions we can live with (pun unintentional).

    First of all, I was objecting to the fact that the politicians who are so vocal about protecting the Second Amendment seem to be completely comfortable with gun-free zones — as long as those gun-free zones are surrounding them. Why should they be able to stay safe if the rest of us can’t? Or in Chris’ world, why should the politicians have to suffer such oppression while the rest of us are free?

    And I don’t necessarily want to ban guns. I probably will never own one, but I have lots of friends who do since I grew up in a state with a strong hunting tradition. However, I am surrounded by every day by people with deadly weapons when I drive to work. The difference between those weapons and guns is that everyone who operates a car or truck is required to have training and to demonstrate their competence. And if someone wants to operate a larger, more difficult-to-operate vehicle, they are required to get additional training and demonstrate their competence with that vehicle.

    So why shouldn’t someone who wants a carry permit be required to demonstrate that they can hit what they’re aiming at and that they know to check downrange before they fire their weapon? And shouldn’t it be a crime to carry a weapon if you are drinking?

    In Maryland the law reads:
    “The permit may be issued if the Secretary of State Police finds that the applicant:
    1. Is 18 years of age or older.
    2. Has not been convicted of a felony or of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
    3. Has not been committed within the previous 10 years to any juvenile detention center for longer than one year.
    4. Is not an addict or alcoholic nor has ever been convicted of a narcotics offense.
    5. Has not, based on the results of investigation, exhibited a propensity for violence or instability.
    6. Has, based on the results of investigation, “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun, including a finding that the permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” ” (http://www.mcsm.org/mdlaw.html)

    Not a single word that requires the person to even know which end the bullets come out of.

    I would be much more comfortable with people keeping and carrying guns, if that’s what it takes to for them to feel safe, if I knew that they had demonstrated that they can use their weapons safely. And I want to know that the law will come down on them with Old Testament fury if they shoot someone by mistake.

  • Well Stevie you are inluck. You CAN own a surface-to-air missle, a cannon and a tank. All it takes is to live in a FREE state, and have the $200 TAX STAMP. Of course no manufacturor will sell to you, since the government has tied up their supply. Sorry, no nukes, that is restricted under the “weapons of mass destruction” law. But you can own a legal machine gun, again if you live in a FREE STATE, like Texas. I own a couple of choppers. Does that make you wet your pants? I used to carry them around with me, but since Ronnie Raygun BANNED new choppers, mine would cost $30,000 to replace. So I carry a handgun. Havn’t had to use them yet, but I don’t have to wait for the cops to show up if someone tries to rob me at the 7-11 late at night.

    You want the government or someone else to “protect” you, fine. When seconds count, 911 is only minutes/hours/days away.

  • Fiftycal said:
    Well Stevie you are inluck. You CAN own a surface-to-air missle, a cannon and a tank. All it takes is to live in a FREE state, and have the $200 TAX STAMP.

    And this is a good thing because…?

    Fiftycal said:
    So I carry a handgun. Havn’t had to use them yet, but I don’t have to wait for the cops to show up if someone tries to rob me at the 7-11 late at night.

    After 9-11 I avoided tall buildings for several months. Eventually I realized there were much more immediate dangers I faced everyday. Hundreds of people die in auto accidents each year in my area, but it doesn’t keep me from driving. Even getting broadsided by someone who ran a stop sign didn’t stop me.

    Getting held up at a 7-11 seems to me like another minimal risk. It could happen, but I’m not going to change my life because of it. I’m still less worried about being shot by a robber than I am about being shot by a stray round from someone “protecting” himself. That ‘strong hunting tradition’ I mentioned included hunters sitting in tree stands with guns and drinking a 12 pack of beer while they wait for a deer to wander by. Farmers routinely paint “cow” in bright orange on their cattle during hunting season. And I’d be just as dead if I was shot by one of the “good guys”.

    If y’all allow people to own SAMs, I am going to seriously consider whether I should make any more flight connections through Dallas, though.

  • What is really sad about this is that one of the Democrats who voted against this actually represents Virginia Tech in his district… It’s really disgraceful.

  • Golly, Steve!

    You’ve used every cliche in the anti rhetoric, haven’t you? Well, you left out “blood in the streets,” and “Wild west shoot-outs,” but I’m sure you’ll get around to them eventually.

    I walk with the aid of a cane due to severe nerve damage. Two days before Katrina hit, I stopped at a Shop n’ Rob to stock up on gas. As I was limping to the stor to pay, two guys posing as cops attempted to rob me. Since I didn’t have a cell phone, I couldn’t ask them to politely wait while I called for help, and since I use a cane for ambulation, I couldn’t run away, either. My only option was to draw down on them. They quickly got the message, and de-assed the area. The goblins were caught a few days later, and are now in prison.

    Also, as a hunter with a tree-stand, I have all my teeth, and I don’t drink while I have a firearm on me.

    One more bit of reality, Steve, bad things can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime. Case in point; My step-son was the victim of an attempted carjacking on the 7th of this month. Ironically, he was leaving a Macdonalds at 1930. (That’s 7:30 pm.) He tried to run away, but was shot five times by the poor, misunderstood, oppressed, Mr. Diversity. He’s now out of the hospital, facing $500,000 in medical bills, and rehabing here in our house with us. Oh, and after being a staunch “anti” for so many years, he’s finally now ready to accept responsibility for his own safety by going through the class and getting his license to carry concealed.

    Incidentally, my “world” as you put it, is the same world you, and all the other “antis” live in, governed by the same rules, and led by the same people. As long as you don’t attempt to remove the right for me, my wife and my step-son to defend ourselves in the most expediant, and effective way possible, and, you don’t trespass on the property I’m hunting on, and, you don’t try to rob/carjack or otherwise commit a violent crime against any of us, we will have no problems.

  • The NRA holds dominion over the Old Dominion? I’m insulted. Those “gun nuts” that attended (I was one), weren’t there to represent the NRA. We were there to represent the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

    Quit giving the NRA the credit for the efforts of grassroots Virginia gun owners.

    I also notice that you conveniently fail to mention that the “gun nuts” outnumbered the anti-gunners by at least four to one in the General Assembly building and by at least two to one at their own demonstration. And we didn’t have to bus people in from all over the state like they supposedly did.

    Colin Goddard’s argument was compelling? That’s rich. How “compelling” is the thought of being relegated to cowering in the corner awaiting your turn as a ruthless killer mercilessly slaughters your classmates one at a time? Much less compelling than the idea that you, one of your instructors or classmates might be afforded the opportunity to turn the tables on the attacker.

    Mr. Goddard’s position, even though he had, through pure luck, already survived such an attack, was “don’t worry about self defense, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time…it’ll never happen to YOU.”

    You have an interesting definition of “compelling.”

    If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, then all hope for any sensible[sic] gun laws in that state is lost.

    Thank God.

    A Virginia delegate told me about one story where the NRA stood up to oppose a bill that would strip the right to own a gun from people convicted of torturing or molesting their own children.

    Third hand anecdote, hearsay, no cite, probably at least misrepresented, possibly complete BS

    I go to a gun dealer and show them my ID and they do an ‘instant’ background check on me and tell immediately that I am able to purchase the gun.

    Strawman argument: Irrelevant analogy.

    you’re damn right it’s “onerous.” imagine the trauma of having to wait a whole day to get your artificial penis.

    Hyperbole, probable “projection”.

    What good does it do for my state of Maryland to try to have reasonable controlls on who owns a gun, when a person who is documented as mentally ill can drive across the Potomac and practically buy an Uzi out of a vending machine? Once again, the NRA proves that they are the ones who are nuts.

    Hyperbole, Ad hominem

    It probably isn’t the onerous 1-day waiting period for many of the protesters, it is the friend or relative who will no longer be able to buy weapons even though they don’t feel he is dangerous.

    Baseless conjecture, Ad Hominem, Irrelevant (what’s a “1 day waiting period” got to do with anything)?

    As Homer Simpson said, “A waiting period? But I’m mad now.”

    Irrelevant (that “waiting period” thing again).

    Cool! I always wanted to play with a surface-to-air missle. It’d be great for hunting

    Hyperbole, sarcasm, strawman.

    That commenter actually had some points that deserve to be addressed:

    politicians who are so vocal about protecting the Second Amendment seem to be completely comfortable with gun-free zones — as long as those gun-free zones are surrounding them. Why should they be able to stay safe if the rest of us can’t?

    Actually, in Virginia, that’s not true. I carried my sidearm all throughout the General Assembly building as any CHP holder in Virginia can do. Local governments are not authorized to restrict the carrrying of firearms on public property either. Your argument may be valid in Maryland, but it most definitely is not in Virginia.

    It’s decidedly interesting, though, that the politicians who propose, every year, to restrict gun owners’ ability to be armed in their august presence are ALWAYS advocates of gun control and are ALWAYS soundly defeated by pro-gun legislators. Perhaps this is why Maryland has these restrictions and Virginia doesn’t?

    “The permit may be issued if the Secretary of State Police finds that the applicant…” [emphasis added]

    Then again, it “may” NOT be approved even if the subject citizen of Maryland satisfies all requirements.

    Again, Virginia (the state in question here) is not Maryland. There IS a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in order to qualify for a CHP here.

    But I have an even better solution: Teach safe gun handling in school as a mandatory requirement…then, you’ll never again have to worry about whether that gun owner “knows which end the bullets come out of.”

    Getting held up at a 7-11 seems to me like another minimal risk. It could happen, but I’m not going to change my life because of it.

    Your choice…you’ll never see one of us trying to force our lifestyle on you.

    I’m still less worried about being shot by a robber than I am about being shot by a stray round from someone “protecting” himself.

    Ah, but is that a valid worry or based solely upon your own prejudices and bigotry? How many news reports do you hear every day about people being seriously injured or killed in a criminal attack (the bad guy doesn’t have to use a gun to injure or kill you)? How many cases of law abiding citizens blasting away at bad guys and hitting innocent passers by? The only case I can even think of recently wherein an innocent was shot by a lawful gun owner was a case of two guys killing a kid while trying to shoot a snake out of a tree. Oh…did I mention that the shooters in that incident were cops?

    That ’strong hunting tradition’ I mentioned included hunters sitting in tree stands with guns and drinking a 12 pack of beer while they wait for a deer to wander by.

    Yup, it happens. And there’s a word for those people: “Criminals”. Just like the criminals who drink a 12 pack of beer and then operate their 2000lb automotive weapons on public streets and highways every weekend. Why aren’t you advocating background checks for car dealers? Or, even more appropriately, why not background checks for those nefarious “unlicensed car dealers” selling their dangerous weapons of mass destruction in back alleys and driveways and enabling dangerous drunks and mental patients to buy them with no restrictions?

    What is really sad about this is that one of the Democrats who voted against this actually represents Virginia Tech in his district… It’s really disgraceful.

    Assumptions. Irrelevant

    Not all Virginia Tech staff/students support the people who are using the events there to advance a longstanding political agenda. Furthermore, Virginia Tech does not comprise the totality of his district. It would be disgraceful if he disregarded all the other citizens of his district in a knee jerk reaction to a situation that had no relevance to the law being proposed. The people of his district elected him because of his positions on the issues…including gun rights. Who are you to arbitrarily pass judgment on whether his vote in this matter represents the position of his constituents or not?

    By the way, In case you aren’t aware of it, Virginia Tech is located next to the small community of Blacksburg. It is a fairly rural area with a long tradition of hunting and shooting. It’s a beautiful campus surrounded on all sides (except, obviously, the Blacksburg side) by rolling hills, fields and woods. My daughter was a student there just a few years ago.

    What you folks need to grasp that it IS possible to oppose this legislation and not be nuts. There IS a logical argument against such legislation.

    But you miss the point. They have no logic, facts or data to support their “sensible gun laws”, only sarcasm, hyperbole and strawmen. Because they have no rational arguments, they must assume that their opponents are either stupid, evil or insane…if they admit that their opponents may be intelligent, decent and rational, they’d have to actually consider the pertinent logic, data and facts…which they cannot do because those do not support their position. They can’t say you’re wrong…so you obviously must be nuts.

    And, finally, the pièce de résistance:

    I’d love to take their guns from their cold, dead, fingers.

    Obviously, Tom’s opposition to gun rights is based upon projection. Not everyone is as violent as you, Tom. Some people can actually have a rational disagreement without wishing each other dead. Witness the “demonstration” in Richmond last week pointed out in the original post: gun rights supporters, most armed, outnumbered anti-gunners by at least two to one. The anti-gunners were very vocal about their outrage that we had had the audacity to attend their PUBLIC gathering, some even inferred that we were in league with criminals and thugs…and not one anti-gunner was injured in the making of that production. Amazing how that works when the armed people are responsible, law abiding citizens.

  • Chris said:
    One more bit of reality, Steve, bad things can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime. Case in point; My step-son was the victim of an attempted carjacking on the 7th of this month.
    (snip)
    Incidentally, my “world” as you put it, is the same world you, and all the other “antis” live in, governed by the same rules, and led by the same people.

    Chris, I’m truely sorry about what happened to your step-son. I hope he has a speedy recovery. With your family’s history, it’s certainly understandable that you would feel safer being armed. Personally, I’ve only had a gun pointed at me once — I was at my office late at night and a cop who was answering a burgler alarm from elsewhere in the building found me. I’ve lived in or near cities most of my adult life, and I’ve traveled both urban and rural roads in the middle of the night. But I’ve never encountered the kinds of criminal acts that you have.

    What I was trying to comment on was the “culture of fear” that is perpetuated by the corporate-controlled media. If you watch the TV news, you’re likely to become convinced that you’re taking your life in your hands merely by entering certain neighborhoods and having ther wrong color skin. But the reality is, even northwest D.C. is nowhere near as dangerous as it’s portrayed.

    The reason I wandered onto that tangent was a discussion I had with a friend last week. He told me about how he had hitchhiked over 94 thousand miles from 1970 to 2000. He said he never had a serious problem and rarely was even worried about the people he encountered. I was trying to keep by remarks brief and on point, so I didn’t express what I was trying to say very well.

  • Sailorcurt said:
    “Cool! I always wanted to play with a surface-to-air missle. It’d be great for hunting”

    Hyperbole, sarcasm, strawman.

    Nope. I was trying to demonstrate that the Second Amendment is not absolute by citing examples of “arms” that no reasonable person would want to be available to ordinary citizens. If we can agree that the Second Amendment does permit some regulation of weapons, then we can all turn down the level of rhetoric and discuss this issue rationally.

    “The permit may be issued if the Secretary of State Police finds that the applicant…” [emphasis added]

    Then again, it “may” NOT be approved even if the subject citizen of Maryland satisfies all requirements.

    Again, Virginia (the state in question here) is not Maryland. There IS a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in order to qualify for a CHP here.

    But I have an even better solution: Teach safe gun handling in school as a mandatory requirement…then, you’ll never again have to worry about whether that gun owner “knows which end the bullets come out of.”

    That’s close to what I was suggesting. Those of us who didn’t grow up around guns are nervous about them. Hearing anecdotes about people using guns irresponsibly makes us more nervous. So if you can respect my nervousness, I’ll respect your feelings about guns as an American tradition and how carrying a gun makes you feel that you can defend yourself and your family. Teaching children gun safety in school would help bring the two sides together.

    Now comes the tricky part,,,,

    Part of the reason we ‘antis’ are nervous is that any idiot (I’m not suggesting that you are an idiot, Sailorcurt) can own a gun. Further, some of the rhetoric coming from the pro-gun side sounds (to us, anyway) like you folks want to see everyone, no matter how little common sense they have, carrying a gun or three.

    Yes, everyone can own a car, which is also a deadly weopon. But to operate a car, they are required to demonstrate their proficiency. If they operate their carry in an unsafe manner, they lose the privilege to operate it. If they choose to operate it without a license, they can go to jail.

    So a reasonable (reasonable to me, anyway) compromise would be to allow guns to be owned and kept in homes, but require that they be stored safely. And if the gun is carried out of the home, the carrier is required to have a license that they obtained after receiving training from a accredited trainer, and after they have demonstated their proficiency through written and practical testing. A license would also require a background check — a car, unlike a gun, is rarely owned by people who intends to kill someone else with it. Carrying a weopon without a license would lead to draconian penalties.

    As with most issues, a majority of Americans are in the middle but the shouting comes from the fringes. If we ‘antis’ had more confidence that people carrying guns were safe, we’d be less inclined to push for prohibition. And if the ‘pros’ could be convinced that government wasn’t trying to confiscate all guns, they might be more inclined to accept reasonable restrictions.

  • “Tom Cleaver said:
    I’d love to take their guns from their cold, dead, fingers”.

    Come and get ’em Tommy boy, I’ll gladly give ’em to ya….ammo first

    Ya know these “baby step to total bans” fan always bring up places where mass murderer were unopposed; they never bring up cases like that Colorado church wehre a member volenteered to act as security

  • Come and get ’em Tommy boy, I’ll gladly give ’em to ya….ammo first. As a 20 year Marine Corps grunt, you just might have your hands full.

    Ya know these “baby step to a total ban” fans always bring up places where mass murderers were unopposed; they never bring up cases like that Colorado church where a member volunteered to act as security and stopped a mass murder. Or the Appalachian college where students retrieved their privet weapons and stopped a shooter (rarely mentioned by the press); where intended victims of mass murderers are armed the murderer is stopped short of a horrific body count.

  • Guns are killing too many people in today’s world. There has to be a way to get all these evil objects that cause so much pain and suffering out of the hands of the common people.
    Because it’s obvious the common people are idiots. I know, I’m a typical liberal who will rant and rave about freedom and caring and rights of all people who’s rights need defending. (Except the right to defend your own life. That’s what the government is for.) Just as long as they aren’t a commoner. Everyone knows the common person is an ignorant moron. That’s why we “gun-grabbers” don’t want you normal everyday citizens to be able to defend yourselves. You are too stupid. Only police officers should have guns. That’s why they are issued badges. Badges elevate their value as human beings so that they are allowed to protect their own lives. Not like you lowly ignorant commoners. All you commoners need to do is dial 911 when you are held at gunpoint, and the police will come save you in only five or six minutes. It happens all the time. Everyone knows the government is here to save us and protect all of our individual rights.(Except for the 2nd amendment. That’s the only one not for individuals)
    So all you commoners need to realize that these inanimate objects are evil (unless they are posessed by a police officer) and that passing laws for “reasonable” gun control (even though the criminals will ignore them anyway) is the only way to ensure our safety. That way only the government (and those criminals who ignore the laws anyway) will have guns and will be able to defend our individual rights (Except for the 2nd amendment. That’s the only one that isn’t an individual right).
    I hate those crazy gun nuts.

  • Nope. I was trying to demonstrate that the Second Amendment is not absolute by citing examples of “arms” that no reasonable person would want to be available to ordinary citizens. If we can agree that the Second Amendment does permit some regulation of weapons, then we can all turn down the level of rhetoric and discuss this issue rationally.

    I’ve seen that canard too many times. When legislation regarding the relaxation or tightening of regulations on NFA firearms and destructive devices comes up, we can have a spirited debate on the subject but that’s not what we are talking about here so that is nothing more than hyperbole and a strawman argument.

    What we are talking about is the”gun nuts” resisting a law that would criminalize sales in gun shows that are perfectly legal in any other venue.

    You also seem prone to using extremely subjective terms.

    Who gets to determine what constitutes a “reasonable person?” And those “examples of ‘arms'” should be available to extraordinary citizens but not ordinary ones like you and me? By what criteria is “common sense” judged and who is the final authority for such? Guns should be stored “safely?” by who’s definition? Do I get to set any of those standards or are they all defined by you so that your constitutional right not to be nervous isn’t infringed?

    You think the regulation and licensing of automobiles is effective at keeping unreasonable people who lack common sense off the roads? I’d say it defies common sense and reason to think you can operate a motor vehicle while attempting to “text” with or dial a cell phone, but that particular wisdom seems to escape the vast majority of the driving public. And if the quality of drivers I see on the roads every day is indicative of an effective training program, I’d say I’d rather keep gun owners as far away from that as possible.

    But I’m reasonable…I’ll compromise. Since you think it’s so effective, I’ll agree to a gun licensing system that exactly mirrors driver’s licenses. You take the classes in High School, get your initial training over the summer under the tutelage of your phys ed or history teacher. Get a learners’ permit and the ability to carry under the supervision of another licensed carrier at 15. Pass a written exam so easy an intelligent chimpanzee could pass it, pass a basic skills test and get an unrestricted carry license at age 16 that is recognized in all 50 states with no limitations as to the type, size, style capacity or relative power of firearm you may carry. Sounds good to me. Not perfect, but better than what we currently have and you get your training and licensing. Sounds like a win-win.

    And if you think for a second that I believe that you wouldn’t ban every type of firearm that exists if you thought you could get away with it, you’re dreaming. Every gun restriction that’s ever been passed has been “a good first step”. Well, we’re done stepping and we’re going to start leading this dance for awhile…at least in Virginia. Gun control has been tried and it has failed every time. The general public is waking up to that fact and the tide is turning in the favor of freedom. Get used to it.

  • Why do school shooters choose schools?

    …Because they attend the school and were usually harassed there, at the school?

    Sheesh. Idiots. More guns doesn’t mean more safe. Despite the ban on guns in inner-city neighborhoods – the chance that someone (who isn’t nominally committing a crime aside from having the weapon) has a gun is still really high.

    Why do you NRA nuts think that by turning the world into your shooting gallery will make it safer?

  • Sailorcurt said:
    And if you think for a second that I believe that you wouldn’t ban every type of firearm that exists if you thought you could get away with it, you’re dreaming. Every gun restriction that’s ever been passed has been “a good first step”. Well, we’re done stepping and we’re going to start leading this dance for awhile…at least in Virginia. Gun control has been tried and it has failed every time. The general public is waking up to that fact and the tide is turning in the favor of freedom. Get used to it.

    Goodness!

    You’re angry. You sound bellicose (since you complain about me using ‘subjective’ terms, I’ll spell out for you exactly what I mean — you sound to me like a person who is “inclined or eager to fight or quarrel” [Random House Dictionary]).

    And despite the fact that I said in two separate posts that I wanted to tone down the rhetoric and find a middle ground, you insist that you know that I want to take away all your guns.

    And you wonder why I’m nervous about you carrying a deadly weapon.

  • Sheesh. Idiots. More guns doesn’t mean more safe. Despite the ban on guns in inner-city neighborhoods – the chance that someone (who isn’t nominally committing a crime aside from having the weapon) has a gun is still really high.

    Why do you NRA nuts think that by turning the world into your shooting gallery will make it safer?

    Ad hominem, Assumptions, Valid point against your own argument. Ad hominem, hyperbole.

    There is some (arguable) evidence that “more guns [DO] mean more safe”. Whether you accept that evidence or not there is NO evidence or data that supports “less guns make more safe”. None. Oh…unless you count the thoroughly debunked work of Joyce Foundation funded Arthur Kellerman. Neither the Department of Justice, nor the CDC could find ANY evidence that ANY gun control measure served to reduce crime. None.

    And you’re right…in places where guns are banned, there are plenty of people who are armed. They are called criminals and that is why gun bans only serve to disarm their potential victims.

    You’re angry.You sound bellicose…

    I just read back through my post and I can’t for the life of me figure out what would lead you to such a conclusion…Unless it’s the simple fact that I disagree with you.

    I especially note that, by assigning arbitrary emotions to me, you are able to dismiss my points out of hand without the necessity of addressing or refuting any of them. Very convenient for you but not exactly the most intellectually honest debate style.

    I further note that there are several points of my initial comment that you never bothered to address. I assume because you cannot.

    since you complain about me using ’subjective’ terms…

    Are the terms you used NOT subjective? If not, what ARE the completely objective standards for “reasonable”? “Common Sense?” “Ordinary Citizen?” “Safe Storage?”

    And despite the fact that I said in two separate posts that I wanted to tone down the rhetoric and find a middle ground,

    Now THAT’S funny right there. Let’s see:

    when a person who is documented as mentally ill can drive across the Potomac and practically buy an Uzi out of a vending machine? Once again, the NRA proves that they are the ones who are nuts. –Steve T

    She insists that people are actually safer if they are surrounded by people with guns. –Steve T

    Cool! I always wanted to play with a surface-to-air missle. It’d be great for hunting…And a small nuclear weapon would be great for clearing brush. –Steve T

    If y’all allow people to own SAMs, I am going to seriously consider whether I should make any more flight connections through Dallas, though –Steve T

    Yes, I agree: Let’s tone down the Rhetoric…you first.

    you insist that you know that I want to take away all your guns.

    I can’t imagine why I would think such a way. I mean, it’s not like you mischaracterize our positions, label us as insane, or make assumptions about our rationality or common sense right?

    But, if you’ll read that paragraph carefully, you’ll discover that I did not insist that I know anything about you. You, your feelings, beliefs and opinions are beyond my control and knowledge. All I have knowledge of or control over are my feelings, beliefs and opinions. That is why I said I don’t believe that you wouldn’t ban every gun if you had the opportunity.

    See, I didn’t arbitrarily assign ANY emotions, thoughts or beliefs to you…I simply described MY belief (or lack thereof, in this case). See the difference?

    Probably not, but at least I tried to explain it.

    And you wonder why I’m nervous about you carrying a deadly weapon.

    Actually I don’t “wonder” at all. I don’t make these arguments to convince YOU. I make these arguments to convince people who may be “on the fence” on the issue and happen to read this thread.

    Every time you avoid addressing a point, assign arbitrary motivations or emotions in order to evade debate, engage in hyperbole, strawman arguments or ad hominem attacks, you demonstrate to unbiased observers that you CAN’T debate the subject on its merits. You CAN’T justify your positions with facts, logic and rational debate. And you illustrate that the truth is not on your side far better than I ever could.

    And for that, I thank you.

  • Comments are closed.