Ammo For Sale

« « Why settle for a lesser evil? | Home | Congrats » »

Dominion

Over at the Carpet Bagger report, Morbo laments that the NRA continues to hold dominion over Virginia. Morbo incorrectly notes:

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.

Sales at guns shows fall under precisely the same federal and state laws in VA as sales not at gun shows. The myth of the gun show loophole is one of the more widely perpetuated anti-gun myths. And, of course, less than 1% of crime guns come from gun shows. But let’s not let facts get in the way of making life more difficult on the law-abiding. After all, a pointless law that only inconveniences the law-abiding is modest. Continuing, we bring up the body count of VT and dance in blood:

Some of the survivors offered compelling personal testimony.

I’m sure they did. However, nothing in the proposed law would have prevented Cho from obtaining a weapon. What would have would be for the state of Virginia to establish and fund reporting of those adjudicated mentally defective. That is what the recent NICS improvement (pushed by NRA) bill seeks to do. Cho’s weapons purchases were illegal but no one decided to fund federal requirements back in the 1990s. Oops.

Morbos continues with frequent references to gun nuts (you say that like it’s a bad thing) and other hysterical ravings like:

To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people.

Ah, projection. I’m sure soon there will be allegations that we’re compensating for our inability to throw a rock at 3,000 feet per second err penis size. Gun control has lead to seizure of weapons many times. It did in England, Australia, New York and California. But that’s not what this law or debate is about. Even more:

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.

Err, no. The debate right now seems to be the effectiveness of this particular law. Nice little straw man, build it yourself? And I suppose that reasonable is a synonym for pointless, as this law would have an effect on crime approaching zero. But it makes people feel good. And that’s what it’s all about. Morbo seems upset that politicians in Virginia have realized consistently that gun control is what you do instead of something.

8 Responses to “Dominion”

  1. Cactus Jack Says:

    “To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people.”

    And the crap that the antis post is’nt done “on purpose” to “frighten people”? That’s the anti’s whole strategy, scare people into supporting their agenda. To the antis “gun control” IS synonymous with seizure of weapons!

    Any decient, law-abiding citizens, SHOULD be scared of any attempt to take away our freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution! Because as soon as one is taken away “for our own good” what’s to keep the others from being taken away for the same reason?

  2. Murdoc Says:

    The guy who just said that buyers at gun shows don’t have to go through background checks is claiming that someone else is distoring things to “firghten people”?

    Oh, and they didn’t even need gun control to seize the guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina…

  3. Mike Says:

    Here is what I posted on his website

    The “Gun Show” loophole is an urban myth thats been around a long time now. Anyone who does even a little research will discover 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 do it 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.”

  4. CaptDMO Says:

    In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation

    Damn right! Each and every attempt at a toe or finger hold will be met with toes and fingers stepped on. HARD!

    And the little pig cried “Boo hoo hoo” alllllll t he way home!

  5. Eric Says:

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0126gunbill0126.html

    Proposed bill OKs guns in schools
    Proposal would allow permit holders to carry
    Matthew Benson
    The Arizona Republic
    Jan. 26, 2008 12:00 AM

    Individuals with a concealed-weapons permit would be allowed to bring their guns onto school grounds under a measure introduced Friday at the Arizona Legislature.

    The proposal, Senate Bill 1214, would exempt concealed-carry permit holders from a state law that bars individuals from knowingly carrying deadly weapons onto school property. If it becomes law, the measure would allow teachers and anyone else with a valid permit to carry their weapon onto the grounds of any public or private K-12 school, college or university in the state.

    Supporters say the measure would provide an additional ring of security on campuses hit with a string of shootings in recent years. The most recent of which was last year’s at Virginia Tech, which left 33 dead. The shootings have come in spite of heightened campus security and policies that are increasingly aimed at scrubbing any and all weapons from school grounds.

    “Apparently, it hasn’t really protected us . . . ” noted Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, a Gilbert Republican and co-sponsor of the proposal. The primary sponsor is Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa.

    Verschoor noted that concealed-carry permit holders must pass a criminal background check and take a gun-safety course, among other requirements.

    But Rep. David Lujan, a Phoenix Democrat and president of the Phoenix Union High School District board, said he is “uncomfortable with having weapons on school campuses.”

    In the context of a school shooting, for example, he said the prospect of additional weapons in the hands of faculty or even students could “exacerbate the situation” when police arrive on scene and are trying to quickly identify the assailant.

    “I think this is a discussion we need to have,” Verschoor said.

    I dozed off at this point and had a dream where I became a Crusading Second Amendment Journalist:

    Me: OK, Mr. Verschoor and Rep Lujan, lets have this discussion.

    Mr. V: Um, okay.

    Me: Mr. Voorschoor, many anti-self-defense people including you, claim weapons in the hands of non-LEOs could “exacerbate the situation.”

    Mr. V: Right!

    Me: Would you please point out how Jean Assam and her fellow CHL holders exacerbated the situation at the New Life Church in Colorado?

    Mr. V: Er, well, that was just one instance…

    Me: OK, howzabout that offduty policeman in civilian clothes, who essentially looked like a citizen with a gun, exacerbated the situation at that Mall in Utah?

    Mr. V: Um…

    Me: Or how about the Appalachia Law School shooting, where the gunman gave up when approached by armed students? What was the exacerbation? The high school in Mississippi where the assistance principal ran to his car and got a gun, and the violent student gave up to him?

    Mr. V: Urk!

    Me. Mr.Vershoor, can you name a single instance where an armed citizen, particularly a CHL holder, “exacerbated” a situation when the police arrived on scene? Have you ever actually looked for such a situation?

    Mr. V: I have to go to a faculty meeting. Bye!

    Me. Mr. Lujan, you state you are “uncomfortable with having weapons on school campus.”

    Mr.L.: Darn right.

    Me: Since your comment is in the context of this bill, I assume you really mean you are “uncomfortable with faculty members and adult students who have been background checked, have no felonies, no violent misdemeanors, no known psychological problems, and who have been trained in the state law’s use of force provisions.” In other words, law abiding, upstanding and active citizens? Is that who you are uncomfortable with?

    Mr. L.: Well, aahh, gun, humma humma, bad..those people always vote against taxes, er wait, is that my cell phone ringing?

    Me. Since you are uncomfortable with legally vetted law abiding adults having guns on campus, I guess you would be more comfortable with a gun-free environment?

    Mr. L: Well yes, certainly! Much more comfortable.

    Me: So you would be more comfortable with lotsa of little bleeding student bodies laying around, like at Virginia Tech, that Amish school, Columbine…

    Mr. L: Ooh! Look! Yet another Democratic presidential debate is on! Gotta catch this one, laterbye!

  6. thorn Says:

    In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation closing a loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing a background check.

    There’s no loophole to begin with. There is no law stating you must go through a background check in a private sale – therefore, NOT doing a background check isn’t skirting the law… there’s no law in the first place.

    To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people.

    I suppose the point of all that “compelling testimony” wasn’t to frighten people? 😉

    thorn

  7. John Hardin Says:

    In the context of a school shooting, for example, he said the prospect of additional weapons in the hands of faculty or even students could “exacerbate the situation” when police arrive on scene and are trying to quickly identify the assailant.

    You know, it’s actually a good thing when that is the primary objection that the other side raises to CCW-in-school laws. They are not attempting to refute the idea that a CCW holder would save lives by reducing or even preventing a rampage. Rather, they are worrying about the heroic CCW holder getting shot by mistake by the police. That fear is easy to refute.

    It seems they are accepting the idea that having a CCW holder around would be good for the disarmed victims, even if they won’t admit it out loud…

  8. straightarrow Says:

    Unfortunately, Eric’s questions will never be asked by our fair and balanced “Authorized Journalists”.

    But great job, Eric. Too bad you didn’t get to really ask them.