VA Governor McAuliffe’s State of the Commonwealth Speech: The Gun Bit

EP-131109447

We should also act this session to reassure the families we serve that we are doing everything we can to keep them safe.

We can no longer stand by as our fellow Virginians are lost to preventable and senseless acts of gun violence.

As a gun owner myself, I fully believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to responsibly own and carry firearms.

But as we have learned from far too many tragedies here and across the country . . .

there is a difference between responsible gun owners and those who violate the law or are likely to use firearms in a manner that endangers lives.

I have proposed several common sense bills aimed at keeping Virginians safe from gun violence without infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens.

If we work together to pass them, these proposals will keep guns out of dangerous hands by closing the gun show loophole;

preventing violent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining fire arms;

revoking concealed carry permits from those who do not meet their legal obligation to pay child support; and

curtailing gun trafficking by restoring the one handgun a month law.

Even one Virginian’s precious life is too high a price to pay for our inability to reach a reasonable compromise on gun safety.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Do you know how a gungrabber says “fvck you?”

    “Reasonable compromise.”

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      And how a gungrabber describes their strategy to strip us of our rights? “Common sense legislation”.

    2. avatar Geoff says:

      This is what “compromise” has gotten us so far.
      http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w419/gwk1951/Stuff/compromise_v21.jpg
      Click magnifier for full size.

      1. avatar Dave in WA says:

        Geoff,
        That was epic.

      2. avatar Chase F. says:

        This is exactly how I feel whenever I hear Democrats asking for “compromise”… Their version of compromise is “I am going to assault you. Why not we “compromise” so that I only punch you once?”… Compromising with them is a losing battle, because they will never give anything up in return!

      3. avatar Carson says:

        I want my damn cake back! ALL OF IT!!!

    3. avatar IdahoPete says:

      “I own guns myself, BUT…”

      Would it be fair to call him a “BUT-head”?

      Hey, the guy’s a Clinton-ista. What do you expect?

  2. avatar jwm says:

    I support 2a, but……….I really don’t and I’m hoping you suckers fall for my double talk.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      I don’t think anything has ever come from a gun owner or alleged 2A supporter when they say “but.”

      1. avatar BillF says:

        When talking to a grabber, everything said before the “but” is a lie and meant to placate. Everything said after the “but” is how they really feel.

  3. avatar JasonM says:

    He said he’s a gun owner, so clearly these are reasonable, constitutional restrictions and anyone who challenges them is a terrorist.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      He is a gun owner. I actually saw him at my LGS buying a very expensive field shot gun.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Classic Fudd. Or, just as likely, typical liberal elitist: Guns for me, but not for thee–unless you are “my kind of people”…

        1. avatar Lost Down South says:

          And have one of them there fancy $3000 “hunting” shotguns.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          Oh come on. Next you’ll try to convince me Obama isn’t a supporter of gun rights, even though I saw a picture of him holding a shotgun a few years ago.

      2. avatar Stacy says:

        With the money he defrauded the federal government out of with his fake electric car company?

        Fuck that guy. He’s not even from here. This is the lowest point in Virginia history–it’s become a fief to be handed out to the king’s favorite courtiers.

    2. avatar Chrispy says:

      Never trust a man who looks like Gary Busey

  4. avatar Steve says:

    “If it saves just one life”

    Yeah but what about if having the firearm also “saves just one life”? Who’s life matters more?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Criminals’ and terrorists’.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Government overlords.

  5. avatar preston says:

    what in the fuck does child support have to do with your right to protect yourself?

    1. avatar Bubba says:

      It’s for the “children”. Just “common sense” that one doesn’t have unless you’re an American communist.

    2. avatar Publius says:

      Because the entire notion of “child support” is an extortion racket. Judges get a kickback based on how high they set the child support payments, thus since men usually earn more they almost always award sole custody to the mother and then set child support payments as high as they possibly can (I’ve known guys making less than $40k per year that had to pay $900 per month (after taxes) in child support for one kid). Thus plenty of men have valid reasons for not paying (or just flat out CAN’T pay the extortion) and the best way to ensure compliance is to have a long list of rights that will be stripped from you if you don’t pay up.

  6. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Governor- How do your proposals to disarm victims make them any safer?

  7. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Doesn’t the 2nd amendment say that government has no authority to restrict ownership of weaponry?

    1. avatar Bubba says:

      The Constitution is dead. Been ignored sinse the Whiskey Rebellion.

  8. avatar tdiinva says:

    Blah blah blah. The Republicans control both houses of the legislature. Gun bills are going nowhere.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      I happened to be in Richmond the night that carpetbagging SOB got elected. Unfortunately I was at a cocktail party with a lot of people who thought that was a good thing.

  9. avatar Pikes Pete says:

    How come he left out the best part of the script ? You know the part…”no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer !”

  10. avatar Paul G says:

    Wow, child support somehow affects one’s ability to sanely handle a firearm? Buying 2 handguns in a month is a sign of irresponsible gun ownership? Does it mean you must have lost the first one? I am surprised they didn’t add a one box of shells clause as well. No responsible gun owner would shoot more bullets than that a month.

    1. avatar surlycmd says:

      VA used to have a one handgun a month law. By it was discovered the law had no effect on VA sold guns used during crimes in other States. VCDL got it repealed in Feb 2012. To my knowledge nothing has changed.

      1. avatar Gene says:

        Correctamundo. But, even back in the dark days, iirc, a CHP exempted you from the one per month law.

        1. avatar BaconFart says:

          Apparently the way the new proposed law is written you don’t have an exemption with a CHP. Also, it’s not just for handguns this time. They used a general term like firearms so that could mean long guns as well. Hopefully this idiocy will go nowhere.

      2. avatar Bubba says:

        I wish I could afford one gun/month.

  11. avatar Another Robert says:

    Someone from that neck of the woods tell me: Does any of that common-sense nonsense have a chance of passing into law? edit: OOPS, didn’t see your comment before I posted, tdiinva. Good to know….

    1. avatar Dale says:

      Not if us active citizens and our strong groups like the VCDL have anything to say about it.

      (Virginia Citizens Defense League) https://www.vcdl.org/

    2. avatar Tile floor says:

      He will probably recieve strong support from a lot of the northern VA types, as there are a lot of far left leaning folk from other parts of the nation who have infested our state and made the suburbs outside DC their home.
      The rest of the state, not so much. I don’t think it has much of a chance of going anywhere.

  12. avatar Jeremy S says:

    Common sense, reasonable language would mean ceasing to use the term “gun violence” and replacing it with something that actually makes sense, like “violence committed with a gun” or whatever…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Or how about “gang violence?”

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      How about just “violence”?
      I’ve never been killed before, but I’d suspect if I did get killed, the fact that the killer used a gun v. a knife wouldn’t matter too much to me after the fact.

      1. avatar Bubba says:

        The knife. In the gun grabbers utopia of Great Britain, where firearms ownership is illegal, their are more than 1,000 criminal attacks using knives as the weapon of choice, in London ALONE ! But hey. England has no gun violence. Hallelujah !

        Human behavior cannot be legislated.

  13. avatar John L. says:

    “Common sense” == “Danger Will Robinson” with blinky lights and flailing arms.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      More like “common dense.”

      “Common sense” means what makes sense in the absence of supporting data or formal rules structure. The antis use it to counter and dismiss empirical data and reasoned thinking, and to rationalize irrational thought, unfounded fear and hysteria.

  14. avatar surlycmd says:

    Despite the great work VCDL, the infection of progressives into NoVA will completely change VA gun laws in the next 10 to 15 years. Besides McAuliife’s election as Governor, look at Joe Morrissey’s election after resigning last month after he was caught banging a 17 year old girl who is pregnant by the way. This Elected Official has to report to jail every night to serve his sentence and the people who elected this anti-gun zealot the first time re-elected him. By the way this is the same anti-gun guy who brought an AK-47 to the House floor and waved it in the air while he begged the Speaker to help push his assault weapon ban through the legislature.

    1. avatar Mark Parsons says:

      Doubtful. The libs are hyper-concentrated into a fewer number of districts. While this has no effect in Presidential years as the vote is counted state-wide, it ensures the Republicans have a huge majority in the House of Delegates and a majority in the Senate. Right now, the Republicans control a supermajority, 2/3rds of the House of Delegates.

      It doesn’t matter if the libs carry the districts around DC by 85%-90% and then lose the other two thirds by 40%-45%. A district carried by one vote awards that Delegate/Senator to the winning party Expect the Republicans to continue to gain House and Senate seats this coming fall in VA.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Except Morrissey is from a heavily black district in the Richmond area and not Northern Virginia.

      1. avatar surlycmd says:

        Yep. The Hampton Roads area votes mostly Dem due to demographics also. The larger population centers are growing and voting Dem. From Farifax down I-95 and I-64 to Tidewater the infection moves. My timeline might be a bit pessimistic but VA will go blue. The super majority won’t last much longer.

        1. avatar Mark Parsons says:

          I seriously doubt it. The Sequester and the Budget Crisis has put the brakes on the growth of big government near DC so I suspect the inflow of libtards to slow considerably. There is just too much other areas in VA that Maryland don’t have to balance it out and the hardcore antis are concentrated in a few districts. As lopsided and dem heavy as MD is, it was hard for them to pass their last AWB Bill. It don’t matter if they win 10 districts with 95% of the vote if we win 25 districts by 51%, we can have a large majority in the house.

          The way the population is distributed in VA, I suspect the Republicans to be able to hold the VA house as far as the eye can see. will never get nowhere near like MD. Even the libtards in VA tend to be more pro gun than the ones in the North East. Pew and Gallup has recently shown even the Dems are starting to trend pro-gun and gun control is losing support as a whole.

          Remember, the republicans would have easily won the Governor’s office this time if McDonnell hadn’t been under indictment for accepting bribes and if the Republicans had ran Bill Bolling, they would have won it in an easy walk. McAwful didn’t win as much as the Republicans blew it and in spite of that and in spite of the indictment of McDonnell, the government shutdown and a third party Libertarian Candidate and a horrible pick for Lieutenant Governor and Cuches’ being tarred as wanting to ban oral sex, he still almost beat McAwful anyways. That’s like almost winning a marathon carrying a 30lb pack full of shit.

          Mark my words, the Republicans will make further gains in the VA House and Senate this coming November.

  15. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    “I won’t rest until all of Virginia enjoys the same level of safety as those true paragons of sensible gun legislation, Chicago, Los Angelos, New York City, and Washington D.C.”

    1. avatar forrest says:

      So what you’re saying is that he won’t rest until his state is told by the Supreme Court that they are violating federal laws? Because that’s EXACTLY what has happened in all of the violent hellholes that you mentioned. They have the worst violent crime rates where firearms are used in the nation (some would argue the world) and they have all been told that the laws they do have are unconstitutional and are being forced to change those laws.

      Restricting the rights of people who are willing to follow the law does absolutely nothing to stop those who are already unwilling to follow the laws on the books now. It just emboldens those who won’t follow the laws by ensuring that they have less chance of facing an armed citizen while committing crimes.

      But why am I telling you this, this is one of those “common sense” things all people should understand. I think it’s time we took that phrase back and started using it ourselves. Criminals being criminals is common sense to me!

      1. avatar Jay-El says:

        Restricting the rights of people who are willing to follow the law does absolutely nothing to stop those who are already unwilling to follow the laws on the books now. It just emboldens those who won’t follow the laws by ensuring that they have less chance of facing an armed citizen while committing crimes.

        It also allows the antis to demonize lawful gun owners as “gun nuts” or “fringe groups” when they protest. A falsely created enemy.

        1. avatar Bubba says:

          “….laws on the books”.

          Ever been in a law library pal ? Too many effing laws. Screw “the law”.

          If we’d follow the 10 Commandments we wouldn’t have all these freedom-stealing laws.

  16. avatar Jeff M says:

    So under these restrictions, if you wanted a pair of firearms with consecutive serial numbers or a set of lord and lady derringers or whatever, you’d have to . . . perform some sort of prolonged transaction juggling with the seller . . . I wonder if such a law would prevent pre-payment for additional guns or just prevent taking ownership of more than one a month?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      I’m in CA and they have the one-handgun a month rule. When I took advantage of the buy-one get one free offer from SIG here’s how they handled it. I did the paperwork for the first gun and paid for it. They put the second one on hold. I had to wait the 30 days, then come back and do the paperwork on the second gun and pay for it. (Meaning I had to pay the DROS/Background check fees twice)

    2. avatar Scott P says:

      Maryland has a one-gun a month for handguns. To bypass that you either:

      1) Become a designated collector AKA register yourself to the state. Hey, at least it is free.

      2) Take possession of said handguns but then you have to wait longer to acquire the next one. For instance you buy three handguns and get them transferred at once you have to wait 3 months until you can get another.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      The law would probably restrict the transfer of the handgun, not the sale. So you could probably buy a dozen guns the just come back on the first of every month (or every 30 days, depending on how the law defines “per month”), fill out a 4473, and take home your next gun.

  17. avatar mlloyd says:

    What does child support have to do with common sense gun safety.? Clearly he recognizes how important peoples fun gun rights are to some folks and getting them to pay up on child support would sure seem to do that.
    While I agree that it would certainly be effective, I seriously doubt it would meet even the limp noodle definition of “common sense”

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      Pandering to women’s rights groups. MDA and Gabby Giffords’ group do the exact same thing. All of them fail to realize that their efforts put women — arguably single women in particular — at greater risk of becoming victims of violent crime.

      Remember MDA’s melodramatic failboat video depicting a woman being abused and then presumably shot by a raging ex, all while pleading on the phone to a 911 operator whose only weapon was to ask if there was a restraining order?

  18. avatar M J Johnson says:

    ??????? Okay, somebody please tell me how not paying child support has anything to do with concealed carry???

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Not a damn thing. But the theory is that deadbeat dads/moms are costing the state money due to the kids requiring welfare due to the lack of support. So, a lot of states use anything requiring interaction with the state as a catch-point: car registration, driver’s license renewal, tax rebate, contracting license, business license, etc. etc. That is, the state won’t give you what you need from the state until you’re caught up on the child support (even if the issue is being contested in court).

    2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      Absolutely nothing, they are just going with the stereotype that said individual must be some horrible dead beat dad who deserves to be punished. Sure he might be a dead beat and a horrible person, but it might also be the case that dad ran into some financial troubles(happens), or mom refuses to let dad see the kid even if he’s not a bad guy and the court has said he has visitation rights. Courts tend to rule in mom’s favor and not dad’s as I understand it. Even in some cases where that might not be the best choice.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Notes on the second amendment:

        No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
        William Rawle – offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

        Let me repeat that important part for ya….. this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

  19. avatar mk10108 says:

    LIAR LIAR LIAR

  20. avatar forrest says:

    “But as we have learned from far too many tragedies here and across the country . . .”
    -No you didn’t. If you did, you wouldn’t be saying the rest of this crap.

    “there is a difference between responsible gun owners and those who violate the law or are likely to use firearms in a manner that endangers lives.”
    -Yes, that difference is that the responsible gun owners will follow these new laws while the other group ignores them the same as every other law they don’t want to follow.

    “I have proposed several common sense bills aimed at keeping Virginians safe from gun violence without infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens.”
    -This is an example of a moron’s oxymoron. There is no such thing as a gun law that doesn’t infringe on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens other than the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states that no laws may be passed restricting our rights to own and carry firearms. Absolutely nothing he said involved common sense, nor will it keep anyone safe. All it will do is infringe the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens.

    And that’s just three sentences from this man!

  21. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    “Why do you need to be able to buy more than one handgun a month?”

    Why do you need to restrict it? Can they even name one incident that was committed where the perpetrator bought both handguns within a single month? Can they even comprehend how pitiful this is? Do they know that preventative laws like this are patently ridiculous?

    If they can answer all that they’ll get my answer to their question… actually, no, I’ll be the nice guy and offer up my answer first:

    It’s none of your damn business.

    1. avatar Scott P says:

      It sure did not stop the VT Tech shooter. Only gave the victims a month longer to live.

    2. avatar Bubba says:

      Your argument also applies to the communist’s attack on magazine capacities. Ain’t no different than the lying scum saying Barry Soetoro is legitimate IAW Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

      Laws….they’re there for the ruling elites to interpret them to their advantage and to control the masses.

  22. avatar IllinoisShooter says:

    If anti-gun pols were to speak plainly and tell the truth…. But alas, it is not so. So, here is a translation:

    “losing the gun show loophole”= Universal background checks (which also means registration)

    “preventing violent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining fire arms”=
    Since its already illegal for criminals and what not, we need to make it so anyone we THINK may be dangerous . Tie in to universal background checks and of course california like gun confiscation orders “precrime”

    “revoking concealed carry permits from those who do not meet their legal obligation to pay child support”= HUH? so you have a civil dispute we take your guns.

    “curtailing gun trafficking by restoring the one handgun a month law.” = You might want that pair of pistols or have decided there is a threat against your home and 1 gun for you and your wife is way too much. 1 gun a month never has been proven to do anything substantial but we’re going to do it anyway.

  23. avatar Scott P says:

    This is why I moved further south. With that cancerous lesion that is Washington D.C. and the NoVa infestation it is only a matter of time before VA becomes like MD.

  24. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    One gun per month…
    That would potentially give me withdrawal symptoms.
    Wonder what that would feel like?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m in favor of one gun a month as a minimum requirement.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Hell, yeah –

        That’s a jobs bill…

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Buying one gun a month as a minimum requirement seems like sensible and reasonable gun safety to me.

  25. avatar LJM says:

    Shall not be infringed.

  26. avatar DickDanger says:

    “Violent criminals and domestic abusers”…
    Aren’t domestic abusers considered violent criminals? If you want to restrict peoples’ rights, at least have the decency of not playing the false sympathy card.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I dunno about that. These days, telling a woman that, “yes, that dress does make your azz look fat” is considered domestic abuse.

      1. avatar B Bradley says:

        You ask 12 different states to define domestic abuse you’ll get 12 different answers.

      2. avatar DickG says:

        “yes, that dress does make your azz look fat”
        .
        That’s not only domestic violence in my house, but I wouldn’t survive it!

      3. avatar Avid Reader says:

        Isn’t the correct response “No, that dress doesn’t make you look fat. Your azz makes you look fat”?

        Of course, I’ve been divorced for years. . .

        1. avatar DickG says:

          Apparently you’ve forgotten a lot since your divorce.
          .
          You a slow learner?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What percentage is which I’m not sure, but most of the “domestic abusers” crap carefully includes those ACCUSED, without benefit of a trial, including of a misdemeanor. So we come from being prohibited due to a felony conviction to being prohibited due to a misdemeanor accusation. And many divorce attorneys routinely put such accusation in their boilerplate filings, the wife may not even know it, much less approve of it, too damn bad, your firearm rights are toast. Really BS!

  27. avatar B Bradley says:

    Same old script the anti’s been using quite frequently as of late. The whole I support Blah blah , but….. lines are old. I want to hear the exact reason for these bills and exactly how they are supposed to positively effect the community with some rational statistics and facts to back it up. Plus aren’t the Amendments in the BoR a given law of nature/creator?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I thought they made it very clear, you must just be iggorunt. One more time; IT’S COMMON SENSE! Got it now?

  28. avatar Ethan762 says:

    I support a woman’s right not to be raped, but..
    I support a child’s right to breath, but…
    I oppose torture, but…

    It really doesn’t matter what you say after that.

  29. avatar Gregory says:

    Virginia, you voted this POS into office, now you get what you asked for!

    1. avatar Bluesman007 says:

      Dude, Really?

      The liberals in NOVA elected this POS, and not by much. It’s like Chicago vs Illinois, NYC vs State etc.

      SW VA has also elected Bob Goodlatte innumerable times to the House. He’s been saving our collective asses for years. DBs from MD and elsewhere have been moving to NOVA and turning the tide.

      BTW, we have open carry and shall issue. Does your state have both?

      McAuliffe took money from Bloomberg and is tight with the Clintons and OBummers. What do you expect from him? He has to try this.

      Fortunately, he won’t get anything passed. He lost the VA Senate in the last election, and the House is overwhelmingly Republican.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    “As a gun owner myself, I fully believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to responsibly own and carry firearms. But… ”

    I love that transition. “But.” It’s a magical word that allows a speaker to completely ignore and contradict the statement before it, turning the first sentence into a literary smokescreen.

  31. avatar JohnF says:

    I’m in Virginia and this is due to a classic election fail and a lesson every state should take to heart. McAuliffe ran against the former Atty.General, Ken Cuccinelli, who was staunchly pro-gun. KC lost by 2.52% of the vote. Why, because a Libertarian candidate who didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning stole 6.52% of the vote, mostly from Cuccinelli. The Libertarian barely had enough signatures to get on the ballot, he had no funding to speak of, he had never held elective office and didn’t even get invited to the debates.I think he was a liberal plant. Beware this tactic in your states!

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Hickenlooper won in Colorado the first time with a 3 way split. That enabled him to have the advantage when he ran for re-election last fall. Fortunately, he’s term limited.

      And fortunately for Virginia, I believe McAuliffe is limited to one term.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Assuming that Tom Tancredo (the third party candidate) had not been on the ballot last time (the three way race you are alluding to), Chickenhumper would STILL have won the election. He got an absolute majority (not a plurality) of the vote.

        The republicans put forth an absolutely horrible candidate. The third party did better than they did, with 36% of the vote to the Republicans’ ELEVEN percent.

        You can’t blame that election on third party candidates. No way, no how. Even if every third party voter had gone R, Hickenlooper would have won. It’s more likely that Hickenlooper scooped up some R voters who didn’t want to vote for either Maes or Tancredo, and that basically, the failure is ENTIRELY the Republicans’ fault for nominating such a doofus.

    2. avatar Bluesman007 says:

      Hellz yeah Johnny!

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      A lot of people claim all manner of conspiracies in this regard, I for one don’t believe it. I have several times voted for a candidate (including presidential candidates) who did not have a chance in hell of winning, as you describe. I did that because neither major candidate had won my vote. Once, for example, was Clinton/Dole, Clinton wanted to take my guns, Dole wanted to decide for women what they could do with their own bodies. Both absolutely unacceptable, so I voted for 3rd party. That did not cost anyone a vote, because I refuse to vote for you! I consider that to be telling candidates that I took the trouble to come out and vote, but you did not earn my vote, try rethinking your position. Increasing government control over the citizens of the US is not acceptable. Conservatives need to campaign on the basis of shrinking government control and government size and cost, and leave our freedoms alone. And those who believe, for example, Roe v Wade needs to be changed, a constitutional amendment awaits you. Those who believe my tax dollars should be spent to push your religion onto my children can simply KMA.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Larry’s point is correct. Cuccinelli lost the election because he was so viciously right wing, and his Lt. Gov. candidate was both certifiable and unqualified , so first it assured that many people who otherwise would not have voted for McCauliffe did vote for him, and second, many others voted for the Libertarian Sarvis because he truly was the best candidate. Since the national Republican Party seems bound and determined to make the same mistake, we really do have to worry that Hillary will get in just like McCauliffe did.

        1. avatar Bubba says:

          Hey Paulie….define “viciously right-wing” for me. Will you ?

      2. avatar Scott P says:

        +1

        What is funny though is in Colorado, Virginia, and my former state of Maryland the third party candidate was mostly LEFT-WING/WOULD HAVE VOTED DEMOCRAT AS THEIR 2ND CHOICE voters.

        If anything Republicans should be thanking the Third Party otherwise the results would be much, much worse against their favor.

        This is coming from someone who votes and voted Republican too.

        The left is not all united like people on the right think they are especially when browsing their websites, seeing their disagreements among each other, they think conservatives are all united in one cause. It is quite hilarious.

  32. avatar Mirgc says:

    Besides calling them out for trying to change the language from “gun control” to “reasonable gun safety”, we should also push for the following:

    Instead of calling it “gun violence” (as if a gun acts on its own and is the cause) use “violence when using a gun”. Subtle, but shifts responsibility to readers to the individual perpetrating the violence.

  33. avatar Fuque says:

    Who is going to keep Virginians safe from this bastard?

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      Our state gun organization, the VCDL, thinks that none of these measures will get through the legislature. McAuliffe got a lot of money from Bloomberg and the guess is that introducing these bills this was a promise he made to get that support.

    2. avatar Bubba says:

      Hey Fuque….your question should be “who’s going to protect us from our friends, family and neighbors who VOTED for McCauliffe” ? The problem IS your fellow Virginians. In turn it’s now scumbag clintonite McCauliffe.

  34. avatar Ern says:

    When you vote for someone with the big “D” after their name, usually you will hear this coming rolling out of their pie hole on the subject of citizens owning guns. What makes them so disingenuous is that they try to shroud it with some double-talking mumbo-jumbo. Just realize their intent and forget the rhetoric.

  35. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    by closing the gun show loophole; instead we will just all head down to the train station arsenal kiosk where we can buy RPG-7s and AK-47s.

  36. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    But as we have learned from far too many tragedies here and across the country . . .that Democrats should never be elected to office.

    1. avatar Bubba says:

      Yeah….lets elect more Republicans like John McCain and George Bish II. Thats the ticket !

  37. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    As a gun owner myself, I fully believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to responsibly own and carry firearms. Good, quit putting your butt in the next sentence. Yes, BUTT.

  38. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I have proposed several common sense bills aimed at keeping Virginians safe from gun violence without infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens. Yeah, those guns get pretty violent all by themselves. My common sense bill is to ship Democrats to Syria so that no bills will infringe on the rights of gun owners.

  39. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    curtailing gun trafficking by restoring the one handgun a month law. I think that law was proven to be bogus and ineffective.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So, what’s your point? You thought it was serious?

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Actually, I thought the whole thing was dreamed up by Obozo the Clown. They are just laying the ground work and group think for further political moves down the road.

  40. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    revoking concealed carry permits from those who do not meet their legal obligation to pay child support; Yeah, this will really keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

  41. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    preventing violent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining fire arms; or anyone else for that matter.

  42. avatar JSIII says:

    Another “Pro Gun” Democrat. Coming soon to a state that begins with V. near you: Assault Weapons Ban, 1 handgun a month, Registration, “expanded” background checks.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The Guv is just laying the ground work.

  43. avatar CV76 says:

    What a piece of sh#t this hairless man child is. How dare Virginian’s vote for this pile of excrement! Warning Virginia, he IS a danger to you, your family, our Constitution and peaceful law-abiding way of life when he ought to actually be a threat to the thugs, hoods and miscreants.

  44. avatar BaconFart says:

    They also are talking about magazines over 20 rounds to be registered and have police inspect your magazines in your home which will be a 4th violation. So hopefully it won’t go anywhere. I might be moving to Idaho if they get half of this crap passed.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      I doubt any of “The Punk” proposals is going to get anywhere in your GOP dominated legislature. But you never know, given the number of Republican sellouts in the party.

    2. avatar Scott P says:

      20 rounds huh?

      Trying to copy Maryland’s old law, eh?

      Get with the times it’s 10 rounds, man!!

      (I know about the 20 round mag max limit for open carry without a permit).

  45. avatar JohnF says:

    I get the urge to vote for third party candidates. Both major parties have let us down and support things we don’t agree with. But it does not help the cause. I heard the late, great conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. give a speech in Norfolk years ago. He said, “The only rational vote is for the most conservative candidate who has a chance of winning.”

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Not only is it proper to do what Mr, Buckley states, it is also imperative to make certain that those candidates understand that they are receiving the backing of that skeptical voting bloc with the expectation of proper conduct in office. Failure to live up to expectations will result in withdrawal of support, and vocal condemnation of their actions. Adherence to constitutional principles will be a godsend for them.

  46. avatar Bubba says:

    I find it criminal how the anti-2A communists subvert the English language with their incessant use of terms like “gun violence” and “common sense” Just once I’d like to see the number of hand-written letters to these political scum begging them to “protect” us with more laws restricting freedom.

    McCauliffe is a Clinton protege. What you read here from McCauliffe is just a taste of what you’ll see with another Clinton in the West Wing.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      No, Hitlerry is a protege of Saul Allinsky Think Obozo more than slick Willie.

  47. avatar DaveinLA says:

    “there is a difference between responsible gun owners and those who violate the law or are likely to use firearms in a manner that endangers lives.”

    LIKELY to……. here we go with thought crimes again.

    I’m LIKELY TO ENDANGER THE LIFE of some moron who seeks to deprive me of life or property…. guess i would fit the intent part of his master plan?

    1. avatar DickG says:

      There should also be a law against attending a theater performance without a background check, and registering your mouth.
      .
      Any fool with an unregistered mouth COULD yell “FIRE, FIRE” inside a crowed theater resulting in the death of hundreds!
      .
      OMG! OMG!
      .

  48. avatar Tom says:

    What does non payment of child support have to do with Second Amendment rights? Is there evidence that deadbeat parents are prone to violence? Lets follow this to its illogical conclusion, how about revoking voting rights of deadbeat parents? Or suspending their First Amendment rights?

    This may be off topic but if the family law courts and the states were as aggressive enforcing visitation orders as they are enforcing child support, that would be incentive to support their children. But that would put quite a few government employees out of work since they would be no longer needed.

  49. avatar Max says:

    “curtailing gun trafficking by restoring the one handgun a month law”

    I keep hearing McAweful say this, but he never cites any evidence to support this.

    1. avatar Scott P says:

      This is just to piss off us “gun nuts”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email