gunglock19

Washingtonpost.com:

Seven Northern Virginia delegates and two Democratic nominees to the House of Delegates joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence at a news conference in Arlington to urge that background checks cover all gun sales, including those at gun shows and online.

Virginia law does not require background checks for gun purchases from unlicensed dealers or private sellers. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) tried to change that, but his proposal was rejected by the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature.

The governor again mentioned closing the gun-show loophole, as it is commonly called, in the wake of the Roanoke shootings, drawing the ire of Republican lawmakers who noted that the gunman in that case purchased his weapon legally.

The fact that the Roanoke shooter bought his gun legally speaks volumes.  Rather than excusing Virginia gun laws, it should condemn them and make us want to shore up requirements.  This guy had a paper trail both hard copy and digitally behind him a mile long.  Flares should have been going off.

Virginia should require background checks on all gun sales.  Period.  Why is anyone fighting this initiative?  If you sell a gun to anyone in Virginia, the buyer should go through a background check, regardless of how well you know that person.

Lastly, I see a pattern here of someone always saying after each mass shooting, “a background check wouldn’t have helped in this case.”  This issue is three-fold.  Every purchase should involve a background check.  The laws should tighten up regarding stability,  It should be easier to identify mental health issues that often lead to violence.

 

Background checks really don’t seem to have many teeth in them.  You can check yourself into Central State frequently, and check yourself out, and not be prevented from buying a gun.  There are just too many loose ends.

Frankly, most of us are pretty sick of hearing excuses.  There is absolutely not one good reason I can think of that would excuse a gun purchase being excused from a background check.

I discovered some “warnings” about gun purchases.  Let’s take a look at them (from wiki) and see if the information is true or false:

  • A birth certificate or a social security card will not be accepted as an ancillary form of identification.
  • Do not lie on the consent form. The offense is punishable by law.
  • Virginia state law prohibits any person involved in a protective order for domestic abuse and/or stalking from purchasing firearms.
  • Federal law prohibits the following from purchasing firearms: fugitives from justice, those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, citizens who have renounced their citizenship and illegal aliens.
  • A Virginia non-resident may not purchase a firearm until a state police approval report has been received or 10 days have passed.
  • Virginia state law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from purchasing firearms if they have not had their rights restored.
  • Virginia state law prohibits the carrying of a concealed handgun without a Concealed Handgun Permit.
  • Virginia state law prohibits the legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated from purchasing firearms.
How current are these restrictions?  Incompetent or mentally incapacitated is vague.  Aren’t those restrictions for the mentally handicapped or patients with dementia?
These comments seem to be a good place for discussion to begin.

 

 

 

135 thoughts on “New call for background checks in Virginia

  1. Censored bybvbl

    Opps. That’s Censored’s comment above. Slap my typing fingers for using my spouse’s computer.

  2. Cargosquid

    @BSinVA
    Then, Censored, you guys are the exception to the rule. And I don’t understand how you can support the ideas that you do…or be so biased.

    And again…. you didn’t explain how you can explain the differences between your opinion and reality.

    1. I am trying to figure out what the exception is to what Censored said. I am envious that she owns her house free and clear. I just refinanced mine. I don’t feel she is the exception at all. Many of my friends are moderate to liberal….50 shades of blue, I guess.

      What do you feel most moderate/liberals are? Filthy rich? Dirt poor?

      I have often wondered about my siblings. All of us lean left. One of my bros is far more politically correct than the other. Everyone pays their own way. 2 of us tend to be somewhat libertarian. I did not see my parents as liberal at all. Perhaps it is generational. I don’t understand how my parents produced us. Oh they were public servants but yet put all three of their kids through college. I guess different times.

  3. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    We’re not the exception and if you believe we are, you’re swallowing a lot of propaganda. Wealth or poverty is found in both parties. The parties just need to know how to manipulate the pawns.

    My background and experiences lead me to prefer a party that is socially liberal. I can take care of my own finances. That’s how most of my friends feel as well.

  4. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler

    My parents were independents – my father because of his job and my mother because of her experiences. They produced three independents and one Republican. They, themselves, became more liberal as they aged.

    1. I know my mother became more liberal as she aged. I seriously doubt my father did. I avoided political discussions with him. I didn’t actually have them with my mother but her outlook became more liberal and it was reflected in the things she did.

  5. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl
    And yet, seemingly reasonable people like yourself support lying socialists like Obama.

    Weird.

    1. What’s weird is that you would call Obama a socialist. Since you have…why is only Obama a socialist? Not sure of your definition.

  6. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    Yeah, we “seemingly reasonable people” function in this world, aren’t obsessed with being victims of some conspiracy, and don’t feel the need to call a President with whom we disagree a “lying socialist”.

  7. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler
    My father and I had a very heated argument about the FBI while we were on a cross-country trip and stopped in Idaho. Imagine being trapped in a Toyota sedan with three other people in steamy silence as we wended our way through Washington, down through Eugene (where the 4th. of July fireworks didn’t compare with what we’d produced in Lewiston), the Redwoods, and finally to San Francisco. We were finally talking to each other in St. Louis where we could remark on what we remembered from having lived there. The whole escapade still makes me laugh. It took my father a bit longer to find it funny.

    1. The trip from Hell.

      My father kicked me in the ass once over politics. He said I thought I was so GD smart since I had spent a semester in college.

      I don’t really remember what remark I had made….just the ass kicking.

  8. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler

    I think college was the tipping point with my father as well.

    I have to admire him for what he said once (something my mother would have never admitted). He said it was too bad that you had to grow up with your kids. He was usually one to admit a mistake- except on the trip from Hell!

  9. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl
    Yes…. I know that you don’t feel the need to be honest about Obama.
    He is a liar and he is a socialist.

    @Moon-howler
    Its not “only” Obama…but he is the only President.

    Let’s examine his background.
    Mentored by socialist.
    Supports socialist ideals.
    Rammed through socialist ACA.
    Uses tax code to penalize the rich.
    Uses the EPA to penalize business.
    Demonizes the rich….not paying their “fair share.”
    Seeks to increase dependency on government via increasing the welfare state.
    Supports redistribution of wealth
    Does not seek to increase citizen independence of government.

    Here, in more detail: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/
    Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).
    Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.
    Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.
    Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).
    Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

    1. I am growing weary of the constant Obama bashing, regardless of the topic posted. You have posted someone’s opinion. You obviously agree with that person’s opinion. I do not.

      People who could do nothing but moan and groan over Bush grew tiresome. So do the Obama groaners.

      Next time you all vote your guy in. I shudder to think who that might be. I have not heard you all supporting anyone, just trumping on everyone else in office now. Newsflash: Obama, the great satan, will not be president forever.

  10. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler

    Yup, the whining about Obama while offering no solutions grows tiring.

  11. Cargosquid

    Oh look…I got deflected.

    Well done.

    So…back to the original premise that I was discussing and Censored has since ignored:

    “Bingo. There’s the problem. Too many bigots couldn’t stand the thought of a bi-racial President. Oooohh. The thought was scary!!!! Maybe they should buy more guns in case too many non-white people began to outnumber them. That, in a nutshell, is what’s driving gun sales. Fear, fueled by FAUX news, to a bunch of old geezers who can’t quite accept the realities of the 21st. century.”

    “I’d bet that that base is comprised of angry old white men (and the women who love them) who can’t compete without the added bonus of white male privilege.”

    Let’s get back to the “dog whistle” thing where you seem to think that all resistance to Obama’s dishonesty and incompetence is based on race. And whether you called me a racist, since it does seem that you said I was using some sort of “dog whistle” that only certain sensitive ears can hear. Let’s see you explain how the minorities that are popular with the conservative base fall outside those “whistles” and are actually angry old white men with white male privilege.
    Can you finally do that?

    1. You have just proven Censored point, or one of them. You didn’t get “deflected” for any other reason than the system settings. There were too many different people in the “directed to’s”. It had nothing to do with you, what you said or anything else other than the way word press works.

      Geeez. No one is out to get you. I saw you were stuck and released it.

      I bet if we turned Obama white and made him a republican (abbra cadabbra) he would have a lot less resistance.

      The dog whistles I hear don’t require real sensitive ears.

      You can learn Faux Speak real easily if you can stomach it. Just listen to that station for about a half a day.

  12. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Obama bashing?

    You asked me a direct question.
    “What’s weird is that you would call Obama a socialist. Since you have…why is only Obama a socialist? Not sure of your definition.”

    @Censored bybvbl
    As for solutions….. a great many are offered….and rejected by the progressives. Thus, we continue with the failed policies of the past which result in a long, drawn out, fake “recovery.”

    I truly do not see how you can support such a dishonest person. He lied to your faces. Over and over again.

    1. Can you tell me without using someone else’s opinion and without bashing him? I don’t see him as a socialist Perhaps I am using a different definition that you are.

    2. All politicians equivocate. Obama is no worse than any of them.

  13. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    Look at the pro-gun rallies, the Tea Party rallies, the Trump rallies. The crowd is overwhelmingly white, old, angry, and male (with more exceptions for the Trump rallies). But when you point to Ben Carson and say,”Look, we have a black male who’s running second in the race at this point” , that’s like saying I have a black friend. Duh, why does it even need to be pointed out? Why do two incidents of race-targeted violence among a population of more than 300,000,000 make some people panic and think racial strife when they never bothered to address systemic problems within society that might have fueled that strife in the first place. They neglect to address the cause but want to panic about what the result might become.

    The biggest dog whistle is bringing race into issues where it doesn’t matter. Violence matters. Poverty matters. Injustice matters. They don’t have to be related to race. They may be related because of past and still occurring conditions, but they don’t have to be.

  14. Censored bybvbl

    @Censored bybvbl

    How could I vote for Obama? Because I’ve always voted for a compromise. As a woman, I’ve voted for the party (sometimes a 3rd. party) that’s least likely to interfere with my personal rights. And you can’ t get more personal than reproductive rights. When the Republicans get off their social agenda, I’ll consider them again. But I’ll pull the lever for Hillary (whom I can’t stand) before I’ll pull it for any Republican running at this point.

    1. I pretty much agree with what you just said, Censored, other than I don’t hate Hillary. I just can’t get all fired up over her. (or any of them that have declared)

      I think many people here don’t understand how strongly we feel about our reproductive rights, even though in my case, it is no longer an issue. Perhaps its because I remember the bad old days.

      I am every bit as uncompromising about my reproductive rights as some of you all are over your gun rights.

  15. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    “Look at the pro-gun rallies, the Tea Party rallies, the Trump rallies. The crowd is overwhelmingly white, old, angry, and male (with more exceptions for the Trump rallies).”

    Look at a Bernie Sanders rally.

    “As a woman, I’ve voted for the party (sometimes a 3rd. party) that’s least likely to interfere with my personal rights.”

    Good think you don’t respect the 2nd Amendment and see it as a personal right. That’d play hell with your Operating System. Be a bunch of “Blue Screens” I’d imagine.

    ” But when you point to Ben Carson and say,”Look, we have a black male who’s running second in the race at this point” , that’s like saying I have a black friend.”

    And how many blacks are running for president on the Democrat side? Heck, the Dems are abandoning Hillary like a sinking ship that’s on fire, and also had the plague. Who’s left? A senior white-guy socialist and 2 middle-aged white guys. Who’s the guy they want to jump in? Another senior white guy who can’t count to “potato”.

    I don’t have the time to do this, so could you please go point to a thread on this blog where you’ve condemned the Democrats for vilifying Black Republicans as ” Uncle Tom’s” or “House N-words”. I doubt you can. Yet I can go back and point to threads where Cargo, (et. al.) have pointed out that the Democrat party was the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, the KKK, and the Negro Project.

    “Because I’ve always voted for a compromise.”

    Compromise is offering the wolf your foot, hoping that is enough for him. You may disagree, but itt leads me to believe that your principles are weak. Getting back to the 2nd Amendment: I’m sure Cargo will agree, there will be no compromise. We will not tolerate the least bit of interference with our personal, constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    1. Nor will women who value their reproductive freedom (and the freedom of our daughters and granddaughters et al) tolerate the interference with our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

      I am trying to figure out why you think the rights near and dear to your heart are more important than the rights near and dear to Censored and me.
      I understand that there have to be some limits on both rights.

      You and I both know that Repubican and Democratic parties have pretty much switched philosophies in many areas. I am old enough to remember when it happened. Yes, it was more pronounced in the south.

  16. Censored bybvbl

    @Steve Thomas

    I’ll vote for the philosophy over the candidate any day. Maybe you’re incapable of pulling the lever for anyone other than an “R”, but I’m not.

    Please…. if you’re indeed a history major, you would acknowledge that the present Democrats are not the same as the Dixiecrats. Why do you think the majority of black voters prefer the Demcratic candidate or platform over the party of Lincoln?

    Your guns rights can NEVER be more personal than reproductive rights – an issue that you’ll never understand because your don’t have the requisite equipment. Until you’re willing to go to bat for reproductive rights, you’re a hypocrite. You don’t mind limiting those rights while howling about guns – which can indeed be limited if the populace agrees to it.

    1. I will vote for philosophy over candidate also.

      I agree that no rights are more personal than reproductive rights. I have tried to compromise in the past so as to not be a single issue voter and each time I was screwed over. I don’t mean minor tweaks. I mean major denial of rights. Some people in the Democratic party also have betrayed the women of Virginia. They know who they are.

      As much as I respect Hal Parrish, it would not be possible for me to vote for him because he voted for a zoning change to attack reproductive rights. I am not sure if his vote was based on ignorance, politics or just generally not giving a crap. Anyone who thinks TRAP laws or zoning changes are to protect women’s rights is either stupid or a liar.

  17. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “I am trying to figure out why you think the rights near and dear to your heart are more important than the rights near and dear to Censored and me.”

    Because mine is Explicitly written in the Bill of Rights, and includes the words “shall not be infringed”.

    1. That’s what I thought you said. I don’t think order makes a big difference. The SCOTUS decides on constitutionality. One right isn’t more important than the other. Freedom of speech isn’t more a right than 2A.

      As for “shall not be infringed”, Rihts are infringed on someone every day of the week. It also depends on the definition of “arms.”

      Can you get on a plane with any gun without special permits? If I go to the Capitol, can I pack heat? Can I own machine gun?

      I find the fact that you think your right is more important than mine basically arrogant. My right is totally tied to the economic success of my gender. That’s getting pretty personal also.

  18. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    “Please…. if you’re indeed a history major, you would acknowledge that the present Democrats are not the same as the Dixiecrats.”

    No argument here. The present Democrats are descended from the loonie McGovernites who stormed the 72 DNC convention. No…they are the party of Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter. That didn’t stop them from making Robert KKK Byrd their Senate Majority Leader for all those years.

    “Your guns rights can NEVER be more personal than reproductive rights – an issue that you’ll never understand because your don’t have the requisite equipment. ”

    Come and try to take them. I have plenty of the requisite equipment to defend my rights. Also, I don’t advocate for public funding to subsidize my right. My rights are “less crunchy”, in that I can exercise them every day for my entire life, with no harm to innocent life. Can you say the same?

    1. Your categorization of Democrats is no more complete than if I said that the Tea Party, the Religious Right, the 2Aers, Operation Rescue and Westboro Baptist are what make up the Republican Party.

      As for come and try to take them…lets do this in grown-up speak.
      I wouldn’t go out on any limbs over no harm to innocent life. You never know what’s going to happen in this life. I most certainly can practice my reproductive freedom my entire life and never harm an innocent life. In fact, I pretty much have.

      Reproductive freedom isn’t all about abortion. It is so much more than that. It has to do with the right to available contraception, sterilization without anyone’s permission, access to information, etc. It is about adoption, in vitro fertilization and not having to have offspring with horrible genetic problems.

      Public funding of contraception is absolutely in our best interests–unless of course, you want even more people on welfare, in jails, and on food programs. I will gladly pay for someone’s contraception. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for children that they aren’t going to take care of or be able to support. That’s just pure economics.

      As for Robert Byrd, as a Virginian I am a little forgiving of youthful mistakes. He realized he was wrong and got out. He had originally gone in with the KKK because of doing business. The South has some dirty spots like that. The first president, a Virginian, was a slave holder. The author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd president, Jefferson, was a slave holder and by all accounts, bore several children with his “concubine.” I can’t throw any stones at West Virginia’s longest serving senator with that track record in my own back yard.

  19. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    I told you using their words because they said better than I could and more completely.

    Obama didn’t “equivocate.” He straight up lies to our faces.

    @Censored bybvbl

    Censored bybvbl :
    @Cargosquid
    Look at the pro-gun rallies, the Tea Party rallies, the Trump rallies. The crowd is overwhelmingly white, old, angry, and male (with more exceptions for the Trump rallies). But when you point to Ben Carson and say,”Look, we have a black male who’s running second in the race at this point” , that’s like saying I have a black friend. Duh, why does it even need to be pointed out? Why do two incidents of race-targeted violence among a population of more than 300,000,000 make some people panic and think racial strife when they never bothered to address systemic problems within society that might have fueled that strife in the first place. They neglect to address the cause but want to panic about what the result might become.
    The biggest dog whistle is bringing race into issues where it doesn’t matter. Violence matters. Poverty matters. Injustice matters. They don’t have to be related to race. They may be related because of past and still occurring conditions, but they don’t have to be.

    Look at the the Sanders rallies. Overwhelmingly white. Same with Hillary. The Tea Party rallies that I went to were overwhelming white….but were of all ages. Pointing out that Ben Carson has a lot of support refutes your statement that the conservatives are bigots. You might not have noticed, but the nation is overwhelmingly white. Especially among the politically active. And most especially among the conservative gun owner crowd.

    Let’s examine why that might be. By your biased implication, its supposed be racism.
    Meanwhile, minorities are a rapidly growing percentage of gun ownership. Meanwhile….. Tea Party groups have not rejected members because of race….that would be headline news.
    Minority membership is rare because the black population has been blindly voting for Democrats. They’ve been trapped in gun control “paradises”, living under Jim Crow style gun control laws.

    TWO incidents of racial strife? Where the heck have you been? As for addressing the root causes, perhaps instead of insulting me and denigrating a statement that I expected more racial strife ahead…..and asking what I thought about said causes, we might have had s different discussion. But you jumped right to a false conclusion because I’m a white conservative.
    You are right….the biggest dog whistle IS bring race into situations where race doesn’t matter….but its not the conservatives doing that. Or whites.

    1. Right now the biggest problem is Trump. His anti immigrant remarks have been directed at people from the Americas and they haven’t just been directed at those entering the country without documentation.

      Say what you will, I know a lot of people who hate Obama because he is black.

      I don’t feel Obama has lied to me any more than any of the others have done.

      No group is going to reject minorities. Hell everyone needs their tokens, regardless of race.
      I wouldn’t say the black race has been blindly voting for Democrats. I would say that they vote for people they feel represent them. Why do more women vote for Democrats than Republicans? Similar reasons. Who represents you the most? Which party? Which candidate?

      Why do you vote for Republicans? They probably represent your philosophy more.

      I used to vote Republican because I was a moderate and the Republicans were moderate, mainstream types. When the moderate started going south, I had to look elsewhere. I would say that since I have been voting, the Republicans are who have changed the most. Hell, Nixon brought in Title X. Go Tricky!

  20. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “As for “shall not be infringed”, Rihts are infringed on someone every day of the week. It also depends on the definition of “arms.””

    Thanks for agreeing that we need to stop infringing on the right. The definition for the purpose of discussing the 2nd amendment for arms has been defined in Heller. Arms are modern firearms. Protected arms are those suitable for a militia, in common lawful use. Automatic weapons are not considered covered…at this time. It was phrased to leave the possibility.

    Can you get on a plane with any gun without special permits? If I go to the Capitol, can I pack heat? Can I own machine gun?”

    You could get on a plane with a gun until 1968. They stopped that to prevent hijackings. After the ban, hijackings increased drastically.

    If you mean the state Capitol, yes. I do it every Lobby Day. The only place forbidden are the actual chambers.
    If you mean DC, then you would have to discuss that with the current bosses of DC, who are infringing on the rights of residents and angering a federal judge while doing so.

    And yes…you can own all the machine guns that you want. Bring money and paperwork. You can even own working tanks.

  21. blue

    Agree Cargo, but it is much more simple than this. A “RIGHT” is something you exercise without first getting permission from government. Getting on a plane may be an activity that can be regulated – infringed- like using the public highways (as compared to a private or farm use road/veicle. I won’t go into any more than that today because I’m not interested in being called names today.

    1. I didn’t call you names, Blue.

      I think what is more basic is that anything can be “infringed” upon if a greater issue takes priority. I am thinking public safety but then I thought about how rights are modified during war time. Lincoln abused civil rights all over the place as did FDR.

      I would be all for totally uninfringed gun rights if only sane, sensible, sober people bought guns. It’s those people without those descriptors that really bother me.

      I am trying to think of “rights” that we ask permission for. Help me out here.

  22. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    Are there not people calling for those of other races to be beaten and killed? Did not two people kill others because of their race?

    There, you have the source of TWO – your words.

  23. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “Your categorization of Democrats is no more complete than if I said that the Tea Party, the Religious Right, the 2Aers, Operation Rescue and Westboro Baptist are what make up the Republican Party.”

    My response was to Censored, offerred in the spirit with which her argurments were presented. First, “if you are indeed a history major”…implies that I am not that which I claim to be, a liar in other words.

    “As for come and try to take them…lets do this in grown-up speak.”

    Moving on, I “lack the requsite equipment” to form a rational opinion on the subject of abortion…this drips with sexism, and yet I am speaking imaturely when I point out that I do posess the requsite equipment (ie the testicular fortitude) to defend my rights to keep and bear arms? Fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here, as I did not engage in any ad hominem (or should that be ad feminam) attacks.

    “Reproductive freedom isn’t all about abortion.” True, and I have no issues with contraception, voluntary sterilization. I am pro adoption and believe that if science has the means to help married couples conceive, than this is a blessing. What I am opposed to is public funding beyond medicaid covering those things found in the “family planning” isle at the CVS, or perhaps a oral contraceptive perscription. I am also opposed to sawing through the face of a near-term fetus for the purposes of harvesting and selling intact organs, even if it would lead to some medical breakthrough, but that’s just me, using my non-emotional male brain that lacked the pubescent benefit of being shaped by estrogen.

    While we’re on the subject of history, here’s a little bit of history regarding the relationship between activist women, organized crime, gun-violence, and gun-control:

    The Woman’s Temperance Movment was a group of activist women who believed that alcohol was the source of so many of societies ills, that is should be banned. They advocated long and hard, and assisted by eunuchs, they achieved their objective. Many of these same activist women were also engaged in womans suffrage…so you had a whole bunch of activated women, advocating that they knew best when it came to alcohol, and they deserved the vote.

    So, assisted by eunuchs (who could vote), they got the 18th ammendment passed, along with the Volestead Act which prohibited the production, sale, importation, and transportation of “intoxicating Liqours”. This lead directly to the rise of organized crime throughout the country. It also earned Joe Kennedy Sr. money by the literal boat-load. Whenever you have organized crime, you have criminals. Criminals will use guns. Prior to that time, America didn’t have a “gun-violence” problem. Any citizen could go into a hardware store, Sears and Robuck, Woolworths, and pick up a gun, even a Thompson Sub machine-gun. Gangsters liked submachineguns. They used them to commit felonious homicides, sometimes even “massacres”.

    Along with the 18th ammendment, these activated ladies also successfully got the right to vote, with passage of the 19th amendment, which trumped a previous unanimous supreme court decision that ruled that women did not have the right to vote, under the 14th amendment, and if states wanted to selectively disenfranchise women, they had the power to do so (sounds a bit like states limiting the exercise of the 2A, doesn’t it)

    Well, we all know that prohibition was a big failure, and the only element of society that benefitted from it was the criminal element. So, after 13 years of Prohibition, the 21st amendment (1933) repealed the 18th. But the activated ladies weren’t done. Nope…they pointed to all of the gun-violence that was a direct result of prohibition, and with their new-found voting power, pressed the congress to pass the nation’s first gun-control, The National Firearms Act in 1934, which regulated Machineguns, Shortbarrelled Rifles, Short Barrelled Shotguns or “Any Other Weapon”, requiring those without a “legitimate use” be registered and taxed.

    34 years later, the SCOTUS ruled the act unconstitutional, and the congress rushed to pass the gun-control act of 1968, which also initated the so-called “sporting clause”. Funny thing is Ted Kennedy played a big part in getting this passed, and one could argue that it was “prohibition money” that got him into congress.

    In 1994, we were treated to the Brady Bill, which used the “legitimate sporting use” scheme to ban “assualt weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines. It also established the Federal NICS “Instacheck” system. This was a ridiculous “feel good” law that would ban the import or manufacture of new rifles based on a list of cosmetic features, and firearms having “2 or more” of these “design features”. So, a rifle with a bayonet-lug was OK, until you put a pistol-grip on it. You can have a pistol-grip, but no collapsing stock. Collapsing stocks are OK, if you don’t have a flash suppressor. All this did was creat a speculative gun market, with “pre-ban” firearms and standard-capacity magazines commanding a premium price. None of this had any impact on crime, and thankfully, the AWB provision sunsetted in 2004. Another unintended benefit was the Democrats who voted for this got creamed in 1994, Clinton lost both houses of congress, the GOP implemented fiscal sanity, and Clinton benefitted from an economic boom…but I digress.

    The only surviving major provision of the Brady Bill (pushed by Sarah Brady) is the Instacheck system, which is supposed to keep us all safe, because criminals would be denied a sale when they go to Virginia Arms or a Gun Show (that’s right…EVERY sale by a Federally licensed dealer involves a back-ground check, regardless of what our governor and one of our Senators say), and purchase a firearm. Well, we know that most of the guns used in crimes are stolen, or obtained through straw-purchases, or other illegal means. But we have to do something about the rare but sensationalized “mass shootings”, so lets bring back the Assault Weapons Ban and impose Universal Background Checks! What’s that? The vast majority of the lunatics that engage in mass-shootings passed the mandated back-ground checks? Well…we gotta do SOMETHING! Even if it’s not working…we need more of it, if only to make us “feel” safer. Shannon Watts and her Demanding Moms are all activated, and with Bloomberg money they want “reasonable” gun-control, which includes “universal background checks”.

    Time to land the plane here:

    -History demonstrates that “feel good” laws, like prohibition don’t have the intended effect, and do nothing more than create a burden on the law-abiding, while benefitting criminals.

    -History demonstrates that the SCOTUS gets it wrong a whole lot of the time, as they did when they ruled (unanimously) the 14th amendment didn’t give women the right to vote.

    -I do in fact have a degree in History (Citadel 1993 Magna Cum Laude) with a minor in PoliSci, can research historical fact, and use these facts to make a rational fact-based argument in the face of “activated” women with “hypenated” names on any number of subjects, and I do in fact posess the “requsite equipment” to do so, namely a BRAIN, and while “handicapped” by testosterone, manage to “overcome”.

    1. I was attempting to elevate the conversation above genitalia and thought I had been successful. Sigh…
      Is Moon-Howler now considered a hyphenated name?

      Your comment has to be subdivided. Let’s start with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union…You make it sound like the same old gaggle of bitches who crossed decades. A little background before we get to “my girl” form the WCTU.org site:

      Local chapters were called “Unions” and were largely autonomous, but closely linked to the state unions and national headquarters. There were clear channels of authority and communication and the WCTU quickly became the largest woman’s organization in the United States (and later, in the world.)

      The crusade against alcohol was a protest by women, in part, of their lack of civil rights. Women could not vote. In most states women could not have control of their property or custody of their children in case of divorce. There were no legal protections for women and children, prosecutions for rape were rare, and the state-regulated “age of consent” was as low as seven.

      [Ed. Note: sorry for not properly quoting]

      Unempowered women had no where to go and no place to hitch their aspirations to other than church or…the newly formed WCTU. Church wasn’t always a safe haven either because men went to church and often squashed down any uprising out of the women folk.

      Furthermore billions were being spent on booze. Women and families were often beaten and thrown out in the streets if the father happened to be a drinking man. (Boardwalk Empire is built on this theme) To make a long story short, WCTU was a multi-functional organization that sought not only to stamp out alcohol but to also bolster the rights of women and children.

      It gave women a voice on many issues during a time of great social reform, very much like groups and organizations today embed with each other to become large. yes, politics does make strange bedfellows.

      Bring on my girl Frances Willard. I say she is “my girl” because when I was a freshman at Mary Washington, I lived in Frances Willard Hall. It was a grand old dorm that had the biggest cockroachs I have ever seen in my life living in the basement. I went back just now and read up on Willard. I had forgotten most of what I knew about her. I just figured if you had a hall named after you at Mary Washington, you were an old bitch, like George’s mother. (who, btw, was a horrible old bitch)

      I think all those initiatives you spoke of were to protect women and the family. It wasn’t quite as linear though, as you make it seem (perhaps unintentionally). Throw in my real girl, Margaret Sanger who worked to save women’s lives. but I digress…

      A strong argument can be made that the prohibition movement was almost a cover for the suffragist movement. It was more socially acceptable to oppose drunks and starving women and children than to align with the more radical women’s right to vote movement.

      I once asked my grandmother who lived to be 105 why she hadn’t been a suffragist. She was pretty much a spitfire in her own rights and I couldn’t imagine she didn’t want to claim her own place in the sun. She told me she couldn’t have done that. It would have embarrassed my grandfather and hurt his career. He was a civil engineer and eventually worked for the City in various capacities including city manager.

      So, try as I did to elevate the conversation, it really is basically about genitalia. Life is interconnected. Those old biddies who were out to protect the home in the late 1800’s were probably today’s family research council or Concerned Women of America–fighting against the vice that they perceived as harming the family.

      Funny how the enemy shifts.

      Steve’s discussion was far more linear than mine. I kept side tracking myself. I will come back to this topic later. I am just damn glad those women activists forged a way for the rest of us. I got lost in the history, but at least I hope I don’t assume it has always been easy for women. Too many of the young ones today take far too much for granted, sort of like I took Frances Willard for granted.

      1. I forgot to mention that I really dislike the use of the term “eunuch” to describe men who helped push through legislation that helped women get the vote. Does that really mean that you oppose women having the vote? Why did you chose that term rather than “sympathetic men who wanted equality for all Americans” or something else less biased?

  24. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler

    Three cheers and a standing ovation! The choice of the word “eunuch” is indeed very telling….

  25. Steve Thomas

    “Steve’s discussion was far more linear than mine. I kept side tracking myself.”

    One of the benefits of having a male brain, but I am sure that the women who love us would argue otherwise.

    I don’t oppose womans right to vote. On the contrary, the 14th amendment “all persons born or naturalized” means what it says, just as “shall not be infringed” means what it says. You musta missed that part up there where I said SCOTUS gets it wrong as often as they get it right.

    “Eunuchs”…I like that term. It describes a group of my gender for whom I have a growing disdain. Every day I am confronted with the fact that “men” are not “men” anymore. I’m not talking about hard-drinking, skirt-chasing, predatory and mysoginistic men-children. I am talking about the confused metro-sexual wusses that can’t figure out which facilities they should be using.

    Look around. Take a good, honest look at the state of the world. The lawful fabric of our society is pulling apart at the seams. Cops are being assasinated or attacked by mobs, while duing their sworn duty to preserve order. We are importing “refugees” from a region of the globe, and if even 1% of these 250,000 annually imported are radicalized, that means a whole bunch of troglidytes who want to yell “Aloha Snackbar” and get the behedding done. Throw in ChinaRussia, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. and the bright future we are looking at will be the flash of a nuke going off.

    I predict, sadly, that very soon our nation will be tested like never before, even moreso than in 1941. Men were rough then. We needed rough men, to go and do very rough things, so that our nation would survive.

    When someone is kicking in your front door, and you dial 911, you are asking for rough men (and some rough women) to come and do dofficult things to keep you safe. When the missionaries of the religion of peace are shouting Aloha Snackbar killing the “infidel where he lives”, you will need rough men (and some rough women) to come and do rough things, during rough times, to combat this evil, and they may not be wearing uniforms or carrying badges. Those rough men, and rough women, will need their guns. They know this. It is the Eunuchs who eschew this, and rough men, and sadly rough women will have to defend them.

    There is a difference between “weakness”, and “meekness”. Eunuchs don’t know the difference.

    1. Steve said:

      “Eunuchs”…I like that term. It describes a group of my gender for whom I have a growing disdain. Every day I am confronted with the fact that “men” are not “men” anymore. I’m not talking about hard-drinking, skirt-chasing, predatory and mysoginistic men-children. I am talking about the confused metro-sexual wusses that can’t figure out which facilities they should be using.”

      I guess I felt you characterized all men who helped women secure the right to vote as eunuchs. Far from it. Steve, you know I don’t mind people having guns. I dislike this “all or nothing” stance. I don’t like insane people having guns and I want to find a way to prevent them from having them, even if I am mildly inconvenienced.

      I think I have more hope for the United States than you do. We will always be tested. There are no easy answers and it is harder to find answers or concensus when there are 24/7 news channels, all with not so hidden agendas.

      I know lots of people who are probably pretty good at defense who don’t necessarily come across as metro sexuals or eunuchs.

      I guess I am finding too much stereotype and generalization in our discussion.

      Oh and yes, I did but in to someone else’s conversation. Sorry.

      Btw, what was the SCOTUS case you referenced. Yes, I think the Supreme Court gets it wrong a lot of the time but I am willing to hold my nose and go along with it because I am not an anarchist. If it is important enough, they will eventually get it right. How could their decisions not be flawed? They are often political appointments.

    2. Steve, you did a good job of taking through some cause and effect. I certainly think that the day of the mobster, yes, as a response to prohibition, did lead to gun violence but it certainly wasn’t the only cause. But….good linear…

      I am more concerned over the concept of Eunuch. I think there are men that are just bad people. There are bad women too but they cant fit into the eunuch discussion. I guess I am not judging by how “soft” or “wussified” people look or act. I look to see if they support their kid, give some time to their kids, treat their wives decently, visit their mothers, keep their homes in some sort of order so they aren’t a neighborhood blight, help out with the household chores, especially if their wives work, and treat their pets well.

      I guess I am not a big believer in the Marlboro man. Some of them are really POSes.

      When someone knocks on my door to kill me, my dogs will bite them and our housemate will clobber them. That’s pretty much the best I can do. I just don’t actively worry about it.

  26. Steve Thomas

    Censored bybvbl :@Moon-howler
    Three cheers and a standing ovation! The choice of the word “eunuch” is indeed very telling….

    Oh please. My argument was womans temprance gave rise to prohibition, which gave rise to organized crime, which gave rise to gun-violence, which gave rise to gun-control. All Moon did was argue that “they meant well” and did a “whole bunch more than just preach sobriety”. True as it may be, the unintended consequence was organized crime and gun-violence. Same argument that is made to defend Planned Parenthood: they do more than abortions…as we now know, they do a WHOLE bunch more. Crunchy more.

    Some little morsal of history keeps gnawing at my brain…something about “trains running on time”.

    1. Were you referring to day light savings time or Hitler? re trains.

      Back to PP comment. Steve I expect you to not fall for the nearborns being crunched for parts lie. You know that isn’t true.
      That’s just not how it works. If that were the case, I don’t know of anyone who would support stem cell research. I also don’t know of anyone who would have an abortion to donate to stem cell research. Furthermore, many PP clinics don’t deal with it in the first place.

      I support Title X. Planned families make for a stronger America.

  27. Cargosquid

    Censored bybvbl :
    @Cargosquid
    Are there not people calling for those of other races to be beaten and killed? Did not two people kill others because of their race?
    There, you have the source of TWO – your words.

    That was the subset of the entire situation. If you want to play with words…fine. You know, as well as I do, that the problem is much bigger….and that I was only using the most recent examples to refute your assertion.

    @Steve Thomas
    OUTSTANDING!

    “34 years later, the SCOTUS ruled the act unconstitutional, ”
    Which case did that? I know of no overule of the NFA. Please educate me.

  28. Steve Thomas

    @Cargosquid
    Haynes v. The United States. Basically, they ruled that the NFA, as written, was unenforceable, as it violated the 5th amendment right to self-incrimination.

  29. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “I know lots of people who are probably pretty good at defense who don’t necessarily come across as metro sexuals or eunuchs.”

    I know a bunch too. They are dedicated fathers, brothers, sons. They have an “edge” to them. As boys they got dirty and liked to “tussell”. They respect and protect women. They open doors, pull out chairs, and don’t use coarse language around ladies, especially young ones. Most have served in the Military. Some were law-enforcement. They aren’t “ninjas” or Navy Seals. They call each other “pipe-hitters”. They have the ability to be hard, tough, authentic men, when the need arises.

    I also know weak men. We have a bunch in this country. Dadscribe…a blogger, is a weak man. A eunuch. It is because I see sooooo much weakness, especially amongst the millennials I feel it is my duty, as a father, to ensure that my daughter is capable, with regards to self-defense.

    The recent experiment conducted by the USMC, to evaluate the suitability of female Marines in “gender-integrated combat arms” units, speaks volumes. First, I am glad there is a percentage (however small) of females that are capable of meeting the rigorous physical demands of combat. Second, it’s sad that we as a nation have to do this, but it is necessary in light of the diminishing ability of american men, to be men.

    “I don’t like insane people having guns and I want to find a way to prevent them from having them, even if I am mildly inconvenienced.”

    Evil has always existed, and society cannot legislate it away. What you see as a “mild inconvenience” for the sake of safety, I see as an infringement on the law-abiding, when everything being proposed on the “sensible/reasonable” side has failed to deliver, that which has been promised. I say bring back the state hospitals, and treat the insane, rather than have them roaming the streets.

    “Btw, what was the SCOTUS case you referenced. ”

    Minor v. Happersett (1875)

  30. Censored bybvbl

    @Steve Thomas

    For historical accuracy you should have mentioned male drunkenness as the main factor that lead to the formation of the WCTU and your following list of ills. Moon-howler gave a more accurate, less histrionic, version of how events went down.

    You and Cargo appear to savor the time when you can strap on your guns and play “militia”. Why didn’t you stay in the service or National Guard with the non-wussy men you idolize? The country really doesn’t need Oathkeeper types running around trying to protect the populace from their own imagined boogiemen.

  31. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    Censored,

    If it were my intention to prove that many men drink, and drunkenness is a societal ill, I might have spent a bit more time on that aspect. But, considering this thread deals with gun-control, and you chose to make this a male vs. female conversation with your gratuitous assertions, I thought it best to demonstrate the unintended consequences that arise when well-meaning, activated women try to do things like ban something. Considering that you can’t seem to grasp that whole “cause and effect thing” or your inability to confront reality, I’ll let you get back to your squirrels and tennis racquets.

    “You and Cargo appear to savor the time when you can strap on your guns and play “militia”. Why didn’t you stay in the service or National Guard with the non-wussy men you idolize? The country really doesn’t need Oathkeeper types running around trying to protect the populace from their own imagined boogiemen”

    We served. You could have. Did you?

    1. Chiming in again, MADD seems to have accomplished their goals. Deaths by drunk drivers is way down. Maybe it took the WCTU’s work this long to accomplish a positive goal. Change doesn’t come about overnight.

  32. Censored bybvbl

    Let me come to Censored’s corner. She served on multiple juries both Federal and local, she has paid her taxes, she has voted in every election, she supported me when I served in Vietnam, she participated in the County’s Gypsy moth eradication project, she contributed articles to the local newspaper, and she has worked for both Fairfax County and Prince William County. Her father served in WWII as did her uncle. Her father also was an FBI agent. Her grandfather served at the Watervliet arsenal.

    She did what women were allowed to do in her time.

  33. BSinVA

    Oh-oh! That wasn’t Censored above, it was me.

    And by the way… my grandmother was a member of the WCTU. Her father, my great grandfather was a drunk. Her husband, my grandfather was no eunuch, he was an engineer for the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. He was barrel chested and pot bellied and wore suspenders. Both had experienced the devastation that alcohol had on families and both tried to do something about it.

  34. Censored bybvbl

    My reality certainly isn’t the same as yours. I’m not afraid to go about my daily business unarmed and I feel no need to feel empowered by a gun. We’re gun owners but never take them out of the house unless to be cleaned/tested. I’ll believe you’re more interested in Constitutional rights and less in the threat you feel you can be to others by wearing a gun when you defend reproductive rights, privacy, free speech. You and Cargo can always be found in a gun-related thread. Cargo’s posts on the subject number in the high hundreds if not thousands. Even my recipe-obsessed friend doesn’t shoot me that many links to recipes on Pinterest boards.

  35. Censored bybvbl

    Hee hee. My comment was directed to Steve. I know your history and manfulness, BS.

    @BSinVA

  36. Steve Thomas

    The 2nd Amendment is the “gold” that backs the “paper”. Without it, you have are fiat rights.

    Glad BS isn’t a wuss. Never implied that he is. Not sure what you mean by your guns don’t leave the house except to be cleaned and tested. Most gun owners clean their own guns, and call testing “range time”. But the fact that you own guns doesn’t mean much to me. I own a baby-grand piano. Doesn’t make me Beethoven.

    I limit my comments mostly to gun-related threads for a reason. I have limited time and patience for other discussions.

  37. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    And I guess you’ve been slacking in your defense of “reproductive rights”. I hear Amethyst is closing.

    1. The owner of Amethyst is well past retirement age. Additionally, she is a widow. (unless she remarried unbeknownst to me.)

      She feels that there are enough other clinics in the area for patients to utilize.

  38. Scout

    What is this “Aloha Snackbar” reference, Steve? Is it around here, or in Hawaii? Is it any good?I couldn’t figure out what it had to do with the rest of the comments. Moon, maybe you should have a post and thread on eating establishments liked/disliked by regulars here. I couldn’t tell whether Steve was recommending it or not.

    1. I assumed he was making fun of Allah Akbar. Maybe I assumed wrong.

  39. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    You assumed correctly.

  40. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    “My reality certainly isn’t the same as yours. I’m not afraid to go about my daily business unarmed and I feel no need to feel empowered by a gun.”

    The sheep rarely gives much thought to the wolf, but I can guarantee that the wolf gives much thought to the sheep. Feel free to continue munching your grass, as it is your right to do so.

  41. Cargosquid

    @Steve Thomas
    Thanks…I’m going to go read that. Also, you read that Dadscribe nonsense too? Too funny.

    @Censored bybvbl
    A) I’d stay in if they continued to pay me.
    B) Are you advocating a return to the organized militia? Great.
    C) I’m not advocating for a return to a time when people could go armed. That never went away.

    As for my posting on gun threads….. that is what I do. That is my interest and my knowledge base. We don’t have arguments about the other protections in the Bill of Rights. Bring some up.

  42. ed myers

    Manly men don’t bother with guns for self defense. Guns are for wussified eunuchs and wimmen who are easily scared by one look from a manly man. Grrrrr.

  43. Steve Thomas

    ed myers :
    Manly men don’t bother with guns for self defense. Guns are for wussified eunuchs and wimmen who are easily scared by one look from a manly man. Grrrrr.

    Says the guy who went around doing “hands up dont shoot”. Hands up is a sign of surrender.

Comments are closed.