Virginia Gun Law Debate

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-5RJegNxgU[/YOUTUBE]

The most important thing to remember about this debate is that nothing has actually happened yet.

Democrats take control of the Virginia government. After having discovered scandals regarding the top three officials in the state (stuff about blackface) the Virginia Democrats introduce some very strict gun control legislation. Some of the strictest in the country.

Many Republican counties introduce "sanctuary county" resolutions. In theory Democrats like sanctuary resolutions because they used them on immigration law. In practice they don't because that was meant to be used on that issue and not represent consistent ideology. In theory Republicans dislike sanctuary resolutions because the Democrats used them on immigration law. In practice they do because that is meant to be used on this issue and not represent consistent ideology.

Democrats struck back, the AG issued a statement saying the resolutions have no effect and that the law would be enforced. Still, fearing that there would be Sheriffs who enforce local law instead of state law, a bill was introduced to enforce the other bill stripping state funds from sanctuary counties, and allowing the termination and prosecution of reluctant sheriffs.

Some sheriffs struck back with a counter proposal. Since like every gun law everywhere there is an exception for law enforcement - laws never apply to the government - one proposed deputizing every gun owner in his country.

So some members of the state government proposed calling out the National Guard to enforce these laws. Some reporters asked the National Guard for a statement, and they said "this is all proposed so there's nothing to talk about yet so don't ask us, no comment". Pretty smart of them actually.

Now Governor Blackface has asked for ANOTHER bill, this one allocating additional funding for enforcement and to create an enforcement task force to support a bill that is still sitting in the legislature.

I see both sides setting up a series of dominoes, each adding another domino, proposal and counter proposal, and daring the other side to tip over the first domino.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As far as I can find, these are the proposed changes:

This package would …

• Ban assault weapons, silencers, high-capacity magazines and other “dangerous weapons.”
• Require background checks on all firearm transactions.
• Reinstate the law — repealed in 2012 — allowing no more than one handgun purchase a month.
• Allow municipalities to enact “ordinances that are stricter than state law.” Among the examples they cite: rules banning guns in libraries or municipal buildings.
• Require lost or stolen guns to be reported to authorities within one day.
• Allow law enforcement to “temporarily separate a person from firearms if the person exhibits dangerous behavior that presents an immediate threat to self or others.”
• Prohibit the subjects of protective orders from possessing guns.
• Toughen punishment for allowing access of a loaded, “unsecured” firearm to someone 18 or younger.

So far, the NRA is maintaining its familiar hard line, contending that the proposal would violate the Second Amendment.

Moran, however, said the laws would “meet all the tests that the Supreme Court has provided” in terms of the Second Amendment.

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable--beyond reasonable in some instances, as the idea of needing to buy more than one handgun, let alone more than one per month is ridiculous.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In theory Democrats like sanctuary resolutions because they used them on immigration law. In practice they don't because that was meant to be used on that issue and not represent consistent ideology. In theory Republicans dislike sanctuary resolutions because the Democrats used them on immigration law. In practice they do because that is meant to be used on this issue and not represent consistent ideology.

Comparing the two 'sanctuary' practices is equivocal. In one case they were attempting to provide literal sanctuary to people who may have other wise have been deported, incidentally violating/ ignoring/ circumventing the law. In the other, they are seeking to circumvent the law, and if any sanctuary actually is provided in the process, it seems it would be incidental.

Does that mean one group is right or one group is wrong? Not inherently. In either case, you can't make a statement that there is approval or disapproval for operating this way as a matter of general principle. It may very well just be an ad hoc solution which reflects a deep sense of importance or urgency for these specific issues, respectively.

 

[laughing dog]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

Calling a proposal "reasonable" is proclaiming an opinion. Plenty of people oppose "reasonable" measures for good reasons. Some people oppose reasonable measures without good reasons.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

You provided no arguments why these VA proposals are not reasonable nor what reasonable gun control would entail in your opinion, so your statement is some sort of weird virtue signalling that is void of actual content.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as I can find, these are the proposed changes:

This package would …

• Ban assault weapons, silencers, high-capacity magazines and other “dangerous weapons.”
• Require background checks on all firearm transactions.
• Reinstate the law — repealed in 2012 — allowing no more than one handgun purchase a month.
• Allow municipalities to enact “ordinances that are stricter than state law.” Among the examples they cite: rules banning guns in libraries or municipal buildings.
• Require lost or stolen guns to be reported to authorities within one day.
• Allow law enforcement to “temporarily separate a person from firearms if the person exhibits dangerous behavior that presents an immediate threat to self or others.”
• Prohibit the subjects of protective orders from possessing guns.
• Toughen punishment for allowing access of a loaded, “unsecured” firearm to someone 18 or younger.

So far, the NRA is maintaining its familiar hard line, contending that the proposal would violate the Second Amendment.

Moran, however, said the laws would “meet all the tests that the Supreme Court has provided” in terms of the Second Amendment.

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable--beyond reasonable in some instances, as the idea of needing to buy more than one handgun, let alone more than one per month is ridiculous.

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

Second this. The left has so little understanding of guns that they can't see unreasonable.

1a) "Dangerous" weapons is one of these idiotic things that shouldn't ever appear in law. It has no precise definition, the use of the term shows the lawmakers don't know the situation.

1b) "Silencers" aren't a threat. They're not like Hollywood, a "silenced" weapon is still very loud--the point is to keep it below the threshold of hearing damage.

2) Once again, a definition problem: "transaction". What exactly is a transaction? Around here more than 1/3 of the supporters of universal background checks voted against them in the ballot box because the initiative petition went too far.

3) Prohibiting guns in municipal buildings is about making government work under different rules than anyone else. Also, such location bans cause there to be more guns in criminal hands--because CCW permit holders leave their gun in the car and it gets stolen.

4) Report within one day? So you have to take inventory of your guns every day? Even when you're not home?

5) Sounds like red flag laws. In theory a good idea, in practice the laws are poorly written and people often have no reasonable ability to defend themselves from bad reports. (Say, having the same name as an actual scumbag.)

6) Depends on how it's implemented--let the person find a solution. Too often when the cops hold guns they're returned as wrecks. All too many protective orders are bogus.

7) Depends on the situation. In many places you can hunt while below 18.

 

[ZiprHead]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable". Calling those proposals "reasonable" is asserting the conclusion as the premise and an exercise in absurdity.

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

Second this. The left has so little understanding of guns that they can't see unreasonable.

1a) "Dangerous" weapons is one of these idiotic things that shouldn't ever appear in law. It has no precise definition, the use of the term shows the lawmakers don't know the situation.

1b) "Silencers" aren't a threat. They're not like Hollywood, a "silenced" weapon is still very loud--the point is to keep it below the threshold of hearing damage.

2) Once again, a definition problem: "transaction". What exactly is a transaction? Around here more than 1/3 of the supporters of universal background checks voted against them in the ballot box because the initiative petition went too far.

3) Prohibiting guns in municipal buildings is about making government work under different rules than anyone else. Also, such location bans cause there to be more guns in criminal hands--because CCW permit holders leave their gun in the car and it gets stolen.

4) Report within one day? So you have to take inventory of your guns every day? Even when you're not home?

5) Sounds like red flag laws. In theory a good idea, in practice the laws are poorly written and people often have no reasonable ability to defend themselves from bad reports. (Say, having the same name as an actual scumbag.)

6) Depends on how it's implemented--let the person find a solution. Too often when the cops hold guns they're returned as wrecks. All too many protective orders are bogus.

7) Depends on the situation. In many places you can hunt while below 18.

I've read enough legal documents and contracts to choke a horse, literally thousands. The description above isn't the law. The definitions of dangerous and other words will surely be defined in the terms and conditions portion of the law. Quibble when its actually written.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

You provided no arguments why these VA proposals are not reasonable nor what reasonable gun control would entail in your opinion, so your statement is some sort of weird virtue signalling that is void of actual content.

When I wrote about how any given argument is meant to be used only in the moment for what is immediately advantageous, and not meant to demonstrate any underlying principle, I didn't expect you to come forward and provide an example of such. Both Koyaanisqatsi and I called our own proposals "reasonable" yet you only reacted to one of us. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

 

[laughing dog]

I support reasonable gun control, I do not support that legislation.

You provided no arguments why these VA proposals are not reasonable nor what reasonable gun control would entail in your opinion, so your statement is some sort of weird virtue signalling that is void of actual content.

When I wrote about how any given argument is meant to be used only in the moment for what is immediately advantageous, and not meant to demonstrate any underlying principle, I didn't expect you to come forward and provide an example of such. Both Koyaanisqatsi and I called our own proposals "reasonable" yet you only reacted to one of us. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

You presented no proposal. You presented a vapid critique which I pointed out as such.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I wrote about how any given argument is meant to be used only in the moment for what is immediately advantageous, and not meant to demonstrate any underlying principle, I didn't expect you to come forward and provide an example of such. Both Koyaanisqatsi and I called our own proposals "reasonable" yet you only reacted to one of us. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

You presented no proposal. You presented a vapid critique which I pointed out as such.

Thank you again for doing the same again. It really is instructive how you choose who to criticize and not choose to criticize based not on their underlying logic but for which side you support. The exact same "my side is reasonable" will elicit opposite reactions from you based on whether or not you agree with the person saying so.

 

[laughing dog]

When I wrote about how any given argument is meant to be used only in the moment for what is immediately advantageous, and not meant to demonstrate any underlying principle, I didn't expect you to come forward and provide an example of such. Both Koyaanisqatsi and I called our own proposals "reasonable" yet you only reacted to one of us. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

You presented no proposal. You presented a vapid critique which I pointed out as such.

Thank you again for doing the same again. It really is instructive how you choose who to criticize and not choose to criticize based not on their underlying logic but for which side you support. The exact same "my side is reasonable" will elicit opposite reactions from you based on whether or not you agree with the person saying so.

I took no position on gun control, so there was nothing to criticize about Koy's post. I pointed out that
1) your claim that saying something is reasonable assumes the conclusion is wrong in general and wrong in application in this case,
2) your criticism lacked any stated rationale (i.e. it was vapid), and
3) your claim to back "reasonable" gun control was also vapid since it did not present what reasonable gun control was.

It is possible your view of reasonable gun control will be illuminating, fruitful and reasonable. Without any expansion on your part, readers will never know. Of course, you can continue to engage in evasion and some pathetic and stupid attempt at "gotcha".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you again for doing the same again. It really is instructive how you choose who to criticize and not choose to criticize based not on their underlying logic but for which side you support. The exact same "my side is reasonable" will elicit opposite reactions from you based on whether or not you agree with the person saying so.

I took no position on gun control, so there was nothing to criticize about Koy's post.

Of course not. He supports the law and said his position is reasonable. I oppose the law and said my position is reasonable. You choosing to react to me and not Koy demonstrates that there is no underlying ideological consistency at work here.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you again for doing the same again. It really is instructive how you choose who to criticize and not choose to criticize based not on their underlying logic but for which side you support. The exact same "my side is reasonable" will elicit opposite reactions from you based on whether or not you agree with the person saying so.

I took no position on gun control, so there was nothing to criticize about Koy's post.

Of course not. He supports the law and said his position is reasonable.

No, Koy said he found VAs proposals reasonable.

I oppose the law and said my position is reasonable. You choosing to react to me and not Koy demonstrates that there is no underlying ideological consistency at work here.

Wrong again. You criticized his statement by offering an unsubstantiated opinion. At least Koy said what he found reasonable in the CA proposals while you did not which makes your opinion vapid. At least Koy gave us an inkling on what he thinks reasonable gun control is while you still refuse to present what you think reasonable gun control would look like.

Why not flesh out your criticism and opinions to make them look mature? For example, the proposal of "Require background checks on all firearm transactions" seems to me to be unreasonable because it is unfair to demand a private citizen who sells a firearm for hunting to have access to background checks.

Of course, you can choose to continue the evade the OP issues with your childish and inane "You're picking on me" complaint. But that does not do justice to your opinion or position on gun control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course not. He supports the law and said his position is reasonable.

No, Koy said he found VAs proposals reasonable.

I oppose the law and said my position is reasonable. You choosing to react to me and not Koy demonstrates that there is no underlying ideological consistency at work here.

Wrong again. You criticized his statement by offering an unsubstantiated opinion. At least Koy said what he found reasonable in the CA proposals while you did not which makes your opinion vapid. At least Koy gave us an inkling on what he thinks reasonable gun control is while you still refuse to present what you think reasonable gun control would look like.

Why not flesh out your criticism and opinions to make them look mature? For example, the proposal of "Require background checks on all firearm transactions" seems to me to be unreasonable because it is unfair to demand a private citizen who sells a firearm for hunting to have access to background checks.

Of course, you can choose to continue the evade the OP issues with your childish and inane "You're picking on me" complaint. But that does not do justice to your opinion or position on gun control.

Careful ld, a person can't be a stated Libertarian and hold a position at the same moment of time. It is a physical law known as the Libertarian Exclusion Principle.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable".

What the hell does that mean?

I support reasonable gun control

Ok, then what is your definition of "reasonable gun control"?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The left has so little understanding of guns that they can't see unreasonable.

I love how only the "right" can understand guns.

1a) "Dangerous" weapons is one of these idiotic things that shouldn't ever appear in law.

Most laws have ambiguous terms that need to be better defined, but fine, toss out the word. You're still left with "assault weapons, silencers, high-capacity magazines."

1b) "Silencers" aren't a threat. They're not like Hollywood, a "silenced" weapon is still very loud--the point is to keep it below the threshold of hearing damage.

AND to suppress muzzle flash "intended to hide the origin or occurrence of a precise shot," which is precisely why our military uses them.

I tell you what. Since as you pointed out, it's about preventing hearing damage we'll allow suppressors to be owned and rented out only at shooting ranges. Problem solved.

And I noticed you just skipped over assault rifles and high capacity mags, so we've tossed out the word "dangerous" and limited suppressors to be available only at shooting ranges since the purpose is to protect hearing.

Obviously, you wouldn't want to suppress any noise in a self defense scenario, as the noise is a prominent component in stopping any attacker, but if you're so concerned then I would buy a .22 for home protection precisely because they are typically not as loud as most other calibers already, so no need for a suppressor.

And you'd also want muzzle flash in a self defense situation to further terrify the would-be attacker while at the same time blind them if they break in at night.

Reasonable adjustment. Suppressors available to rent only while at shooting ranges.

2) Once again, a definition problem:

Easily addressed by defining it.

3) Prohibiting guns in municipal buildings is about making government work under different rules than anyone else.

So? That's already the case. Not a legitimate objection so that stays.

Also, such location bans cause there to be more guns in criminal hands--because CCW permit holders leave their gun in the car and it gets stolen.

Idiotic so strike this one too.

4) Report within one day? So you have to take inventory of your guns every day? Even when you're not home?

Seriously? The proposal is:

Require lost or stolen guns to be reported to authorities within one day.

If you've lost your gun or it was stolen, you have to report either within one day. And, yeah, you should absolutely be able to state without hesitation exactly where your gun is at all times, so if there is any question then fuck yeah you'd better inventory your guns every day.

Not exactly a proposition from Wittgenstein. Reasonable and therefore remains.

5) Sounds like red flag laws. In theory a good idea, in practice the laws are poorly written and people often have no reasonable ability to defend themselves from bad reports. (Say, having the same name as an actual scumbag.)

Easily rectified by simply producing your gun license matched to the weapon. Reasonable and therefore remains.

6) Depends on how it's implemented--let the person find a solution. Too often when the cops hold guns they're returned as wrecks. All too many protective orders are bogus.

Baseless assertions from a biased source. Reasonable and therefore remains.

7) Depends on the situation.

Everything does, so not a legitimate argument. Reasonable and therefore remains.

So you're only legitimate argument against anything proposed is that two terms were not well defined.

 

[southernhybrid]

My husband owns more guns than I would like, but I have no doubt he would support all of the gun control measures in the proposed law in Virginia. I'm thankful that he at least gave up his concealed carry permit a few years ago. He finally realized that he didn't need to carry a gun all over the place. The problem now is that it's very hard to sell guns that you no longer want or need because there are so many fucking guns. More supply than demand.

I live in Georgia and guns aren't allowed in some of our municipal buildings. There are even guards and metal detectors that we must walk through before entering. Knives aren't allowed either. For fuck sake. If you lock your gun in your trunk or glove compartment, nobody is going to steal it. Private businesses already have the right to forbid guns in their buildings or stores. Grow the fuck up, and don't be so insecure that you feel naked without your gun. Keep it at home where it can be used in the rare chance that someone breaks into your home. But why does anyone need a gun during the day when they go shopping or to the bank. Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone openly carry in a bank. The security guard might not like that.

I'll see if I can find the article that mentioned the crazy reaction to some of these proposed laws. Most gun owners support gun control that includes back ground checks, denying guns to those who have been arrested for domestic violence or who have made violent threats etc. Some gun owners seem like little cowards to me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Careful ld, a person can't be a stated Libertarian and hold a position at the same moment of time. It is a physical law known as the Libertarian Exclusion Principle.

That non-principle isn't what is happening. I stated in my OP the exact argument that LD later made, and he is embarrassed about it to the point where he is desperate to change the subject.

I'm not letting him change the subject.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Per usual, these are all perfectly reasonable

By a sufficiently unreasonable definition of "reasonable".

What the hell does that mean?

It means I don't agree with your assertion that those measure are in any way reasonable.

I support reasonable gun control

Ok, then what is your definition of "reasonable gun control"?

I believe in the right of self defense. I believe that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right. Property owners can establish their own rules on firearms on their property, so it is reasonable to say "you can't bring a gun into my store" unlike some of the open carry laws that exist. Any laws that says "you cannot exercise your rights more than once a month" is rubbish. You need to take personal responsibility for your firearms. Red flag laws are rubbish designed to violate peoples rights without due process.

I also think that law enforcement sets a bad example for how to behave with firearms, that most of what the unreasonable Virginia proposals have as a basis is the fevered imagining that regular people would be as unprincipled as police in their use of firearms.

THAT is reasonable gun control.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I believe in the right of self defense.

I doubt you'll find an argument against it.

I believe that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right.

There is no such thing as a "pre-existing" anything, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean "god ordained" or something?

Property owners can establish their own rules on firearms on their property

Well, that's false no matter what. Not even Scalia has ruled that nonsense to be constitutional, let alone a right. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is "god ordained right to establish whatever rules you personally want in regard to firearms on your own property" or something, because that would be preposterous and you would lose all credibility in regard to "reasonableness"?

so it is reasonable to say "you can't bring a gun into my store" unlike some of the open carry laws that exist.

Oh, so you're NOT arguing you can own any weapon you want. Got it. You were just saying that store owners can stop you from bringing a gun into their store. Again, I don't think anyone would argue against that, but I also don't see the Virginia proposal stopping that either.

Any laws that says "you cannot exercise your rights more than once a month" is rubbish.

By that I guess you're referring to the limitation of being able to only purchase one gun per month. You find that "unreasonable" in spite of the fact that it would mean you could own 12 guns in a year; 120 guns by the time you're 31?

You need to take personal responsibility for your firearms.

Agreed. So how are we to deal with those who do not when they have 120 guns in their house?

Red flag laws are rubbish designed to violate peoples rights without due process.

Unverifiable opinion that rests entirely on subjective assertion, so same as with Loren that has to be rejected.

I also think that law enforcement sets a bad example for how to behave with firearms, that most of what the unreasonable Virginia proposals have as a basis is the fevered imagining that regular people would be as unprincipled as police in their use of firearms.

Well, again, unverifiable opinion that rests entirely on subjective assertion, so rejected.

THAT is reasonable gun control.

I don't see ANY gun control in any of that. All you've done is assert some things are just bad and bizarrely equated being able to say "You can't have that gun in my store" with someone's "pre-existing right" to buy as many handguns as they want every month.

I see absolutely nothing reasonable about insisting you have a "pre-existing right" to own 120 guns, so maybe you can expand on this "pre-existing right" thing, undertanding that "rights" are granted by government, not by gods?