Governor Ass-hat, er Northam, and a proposal to consider

[goatboy]

Virginia.

Our governor is in the process of proposing new legislation to call for universal background checks, court mediated flagging, restore one-hand-gun-a-month limit and ban assault weapons defined as any firearm with a magazine greater than 10 rounds. These proposals contnue an inane focus on the "what" of guns without a proper focus on the "who" other than the first and second elements.

I'm not a supporter, and in trying to read more about the legislation and its calendar for the purposes of objecting, I came across an interesting proposal posted on politico by Jon Stokes.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...federal-semi-automatic-firearm-license-218072

Stokes make the audacious proposal to replace the patchwork of State laws with a federal license for the possession of semiautomatic weapons. I grew up in Illinois where we had FOID, firearm owner identification, cards so this idea isn't foreign to me.

Thoughts? My belief, and I think Stokes' too, is that there is a big debate on this coming and if there is no new idea or nationally actionable idea, then states will only further divide, setting more restrictive laws that then become precedent to be used on the national stage by the politicians now accustomed to them. Stoke's proposal seems more like functional reform rather than half assed compromises like current proposals and, looking back, legislation like FOPA.

GB

 

[candyx]

When the rights of many out number the needs of the few or even one,crimes against the Constitution can't go unpunished . The citizens of Virginia have the duty to not harbor such people who would remove their rights provided under the Constitution.If history has proven anything it has shown us when you cut the head off the snake you remove the threat. Long live the Republic.

 

[MK20]

You really think that it is constitutional to have to ask the govt. for permission to own semi automatic firearms?
That Illinois upbringing indoctrinated you more than you realize.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Virginia is lost forever.

 

[davsco]

yep virginian here and don't like seeing it go to crap. hopefully northam's ridiculous proposals will go by the wayside. no one wants to focus on criminals and bad guys and instead they focus on the tools they use. plus despite all the death and damage from drunk and distracted drivers, wonder why no one is on the warpath to ban alcohol and cell phones.

 

[goatboy]

You really think that it is constitutional to have to ask the govt. for permission to own semi automatic firearms?
That Illinois upbringing indoctrinated you more than you realize.

I didn’t say that I liked it...

 

[XLR308]

How many rounds does it take to pop a deuchebag politition pop ?
Only one

 

[Va_Gentleman]

I am not surprised.... I weep for my Commonwealth.

 

[Mwalex]

Coming to a state near you.

 

[scharfschutze762]

Virginia?! I thought was a gun friendly state, at it was last time lived there.

 

[ArmyJerry]

its mecca quite literally

 

[goatboy]

its mecca quite literally

It is a “Mecca”, but like a lot of places the urbanization in the state brings a gun unfriendly sentiment that is reflected in the governors proposals. For those of us living here, we need to consider strategies to lean against it. Just relying on the supreme court to ultimately defend the rights seems to create a lot of uncertainty which is why I posted Stokes’ proposal. Certainly, it seems asinine to have to “get permission” to exercise a constitutional right, but to close off the discussion on that basis is to not recognize that there are issues with gun usage by criminals and the mentally unstable. If we want to preserve the right on a national basis, which is how we should look at this, we need to be offering solutions and ideas.

Sad that we have to defend it this way but it seems the only realistic approach.

 

[Maxduty]

Interesting tidbit about the state of VA. Did you know that it is legal to receive signals from a a transmitter in every state except Virginia? No radar detectors. Imagine that. They started telling everyone that travels the state what they can and can not receive, even if it's legal.

 

[ArmyJerry]

as in half of Saudi Arabia lives in the 3 northern counties with more radical wahabist mosques than Saudi Arabia. I mean fucking Mecca, this is who is influencing your government in DC.

It is a “Mecca”, but like a lot of places the urbanization in the state brings a gun unfriendly sentiment that is reflected in the governors proposals. For those of us living here, we need to consider strategies to lean against it. Just relying on the supreme court to ultimately defend the rights seems to create a lot of uncertainty which is why I posted Stokes’ proposal. Certainly, it seems asinine to have to “get permission” to exercise a constitutional right, but to close off the discussion on that basis is to not recognize that there are issues with gun usage by criminals and the mentally unstable. If we want to preserve the right on a national basis, which is how we should look at this, we need to be offering solutions and ideas.

Sad that we have to defend it this way but it seems the only realistic approach.

 

[deersniper]

It is a “Mecca”, but like a lot of places the urbanization in the state brings a gun unfriendly sentiment that is reflected in the governors proposals. For those of us living here, we need to consider strategies to lean against it. Just relying on the supreme court to ultimately defend the rights seems to create a lot of uncertainty which is why I posted Stokes’ proposal. Certainly, it seems asinine to have to “get permission” to exercise a constitutional right, but to close off the discussion on that basis is to not recognize that there are issues with gun usage by criminals and the mentally unstable. If we want to preserve the right on a national basis, which is how we should look at this, we need to be offering solutions and ideas.

Sad that we have to defend it this way but it seems the only realistic approach.

Here's a fucking idea.
Constitutional carry. Or if that makes people cry. Mandatory shall issue. With no "no gun" zones
And ban releasing or publicizing the name of any school or mass sbooter

There a fuxking idea that would cause gun crime to plummet

But nope. We let women who make decisions purely on emotion vote so it will never happen. "OMG more guns is not the answer. WTF is wrong with you. And we can't be mean to these criminals and put them in jail. Give them suspended sentences. It's not their fault"

And the commies want more shootings so they have a reason to ban guns. Ala fast a an furious gun running

NOT ONE MORE INCH. FUCK THE COMMIES. FUCK THE OLIGHARCHY. FUCK THEIR UNCONSITUIONAL LAWS.

 

[goatboy]

as in half of Saudi Arabia lives in the 3 northern counties with more radical wahabist mosques than Saudi Arabia. I mean fucking Mecca, this is who is influencing your government in DC.

Well played

 

[goatboy]

Here's a fucking idea.
Constitutional carry. Or if that makes people cry. Mandatory shall issue. With no "no gun" zones
And ban releasing or publicizing the name of any school or mass sbooter

There a fuxking idea that would cause gun crime to plummet

But nope. We let women who make decisions purely on emotion vote so it will never happen. "OMG more guns is not the answer. WTF is wrong with you. And we can't be mean to these criminals and put them in jail. Give them suspended sentences. It's not their fault"

And the commies want more shootings so they have a reason to ban guns. Ala fast a an furious gun running

NOT ONE MORE INCH. FUCK THE COMMIES. FUCK THE OLIGHARCHY. FUCK THEIR UNCONSITUIONAL LAWS.
View attachment 6999066

What do you suggest we do? The cartoon hits the issues squarely, whether you like it or not, the "right" has been attenuated by social decisions because of fear of crime (the NFA) and shootings ( Brady Act, Clinton directives, etc) and to stand on the concept that the right is or will be functionally protected because it is in the constitution denies these realities. Unless we frame these issues of in terms of "who" can have guns, the antis will continue the focus on "what" guns we have.

Guns in the hands of the law abiding, those that pass background checks, aren't the problem. We've been loosing our functional right because of guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Something like Stokes proposal would be capable of distinguishing among the three groups and would present no more functional burden than exists at present on the law abiding. As a federal law, like the NFA, it would supersede state laws and address the issue on a national basis.

But look, you don't have to agree. But, to do nothing in the metaphor of that cartoon is to be subject to the next step in which the woman, after eating the whole cake, demands "child support" probably in the form of some tax on gun sales to address the cost of their "externalities".

 

[deersniper]

Nope fuck all that. Fuck your background checks. Fuck the ID card fuck all of it. "No free man shall be disbarred the use of arms".
Guns aren't the problem.
Psychiatric drugs and Muslims are the problem.

Maybe to go along with your FOID card we can have
MID and GID cards. Because Muslims and hiv/aids kill more people than guns do.


You think these people you are negotiating with have good intentions. You couldn't be more wrong. They won't stop till everyone (except for them ) is disarmed.

No more compromise. More guns = less crime. We need more advocates and more education campaigns.

Edit. Who do you think will control the "who" can have guns. You really need to open your eyes. Please study these anti gun people, world history, and recent world and US events/history

Second edit. As far as the "who". People not being able to carry arms is the problem. Teachers would be able to stop any mass shooting.
That kind of elitist who can have guns thinking sounds like a cop or a democrat party/racist platform.

 

[goatboy]

We need more advocates and more education campaigns.

True that. But who is doing that effectively?

 

[Alphatreedog]

Rights bestowed by the Creator . Shall no bet infringed . Depriving me of God given Rights will not protect you from those who would violate your God given Rights .
Life ; Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness .

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

You think these people you are negotiating with have good intentions. You couldn't be more wrong. They won't stop till everyone (except for them ) is disarmed.

Exactly. The gun grabbers are playing the long game because they know that every bite they can take from our rights is going to be functionally impossible to get back.

 

[goatboy]

Exactly. The gun grabbers are playing the long game because they know that every bite they can take from our rights is going to be functionally impossible to get back.

Why would we think that the antis have any "good intentions" in any negotiation, the issue is to change the dimensions of the problem they define, the biggest of which is revulsion at school shootings and an irrational fear of "military looking" guns. Assume that they want to get rid of guns, but frame the issue as being guns in the hands of the wrong people and shift the debate in that direction. I'd love to think that sanctification in the constitution is sufficient, but history articulates that aint so. No one gets what they deserve in this country, they get what they negotiate for. Either we change tactics or face further infringement, unconstitutional as it may be.