You see, when you're a gun-rights advocate, you've got "right" on your side and you can say and do anything you like. In his lame justification of the new law, the Delegate is pretending that limiting purchases to one a month has something to do with criminals buying guns from FFL dealers. Obviously this is not the case. What he said about criminals not standing in the light and handing over their documents has absolutely nothing to do with it.Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William and sponsor of the repeal bill, said the one-handgun limit didn’t accomplish much for law enforcement.
“I think Virginians deserve effective laws, and one handgun a month has been overtaken by technology and improved background checks,” he said. “Criminals don’t go into gun stores, stand there in the bright light, hand over their driver’s license and stand there and wait for the vendor to see if they have a criminal record.”
What the law did was to limit the so-called law abiding citizens from buying more than one at a time. Those people include criminals and traffickers who haven't been caught yet as well as straw purchasers who turn the guns they buy over to criminals immediately. Other laws which conveniently interweave into this prohibit registration of guns and licensing of gun buyers, therefore those straw purchasers easily escape detection.
This is Virginia. This is a backward state run by right-wing lunatics and populated by red-neck gun lovers, who, whether they're in the majority or not, are certainly more powerful and more influential than the liberal, progressive, intelligent and reasonable people of Virginia.
It's a sad story about a step backwards.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb, I've tried not to insult you, but here you go again, attacking groups of people that you obviously don't understand. Until you put forth some effort to learn who we are, you'll never reach us. You may not care, but despite your propaganda, there are more of us than there are of you.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the law, though, I'm glad to see it gone. It's only purpose was to make the Brady Bunch happy, and now, Virginia's score can go down a point.
Greg, I know who you are better than you think. I used to be one of you, without the extremism.
DeleteI'm not insulting anybody when I point out that this law makes it possible for lawful people and hidden criminals alike to buy more than one gun a month. When the one-gun-a-month rule is in place, the lawful guys are inconvenienced a little bit, but the hidden criminals are severely hampered in their nefarious efforts.
How can you in good conscience support such a thing.
1. I don't accept that this law did anything to prevent criminals from getting guns. In addition, there were only three states that had a one-gun-a-month law, and now there are only two.
Delete2. It violates the rights of lawful gun owners. Imagine a law that restricted you to buying only one book a month. We can go round and round about how the two objects are different, but both are physical expressions of rights. You don't believe that gun ownership is a right, but we do.
3. You used to be one of us? I presume that you mean gun owner. I was referring to rednecks. There are a variety of explanations of the origin of that word, but one is from the red bandanas that striking coal miners wore. Thats as may be, but the general attitude of rednecks is that we want to be left alone. Or if you do want to come in among us, be a polite guest, rather than the city person who comes out into the country and wants to citify everything.