Sen. Mark Warner: I Was Against An Assault Weapons Ban Before I Was For It

Assault Weapons Ban AR-15 Bump Stock

“(T)he features and tactical accessories that define assault weapons under this legislation were designed for a specific purpose — to give soldiers an advantage over the enemy, not to mow down students in school hallways.

“We should acknowledge that while some will object to reasonable magazine-size limits, they would also force an active shooter to reload more often, buying law enforcement and potential shooting victims valuable seconds that could prove lifesaving.

“And let’s agree that modifications such as binary triggers and bump stocks, which skirt the law to effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic weapons, should never have been on the streets in the first place.

“These are the core ideas behind the assault weapons ban. Some may worry that the technical challenges of defining an assault weapon may result in a law that’s either toothless or overly restrictive of gun rights. Frankly, I share those concerns, but it’s time to stop talking about the problem and do something about it.” – Virginia Senator Mark Warner in I voted against an assault weapons ban. Here’s why I changed my mind.

comments

  1. Well that guy NEEDS to lose his position. Since he obviously CAN’T uphold his oath to protect the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. Another Self-absorbed Globalists who has NO concept of what it is to be a representative of the People.Hopefully the fine folks in Virginia will show this man to the door…Out of the state Captial…

    1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

      He won’t lose. He’s super popular here in VA (as is Kaine).

      Virginia is lost.

      1. avatar AJ says:

        Virginia is not “lost”…

        For time being, Va, NY, Ca.. are just occupied territories..

        The sleeping bear.. will eventually awake….

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          lol I’ved in CA my whole life, i’m 50.

          No…..the bear wont, he’s extinct.

        2. avatar Don says:

          I live in NY. It is over. No awakening here. And all those freedom seekers from NY you let into your free state will vote for the same tyranny they left. It is what brainwashing gets you. Watch the NY elections in 30 days. That is what NY believes.

    2. avatar silverwarloc says:

      I voted for the others not named Kaine or Warner. Like what Mike Hawkizard said: Virginia is lost. However, I am hopeful that people will change their minds. No Hope and Change. We saw what that brought. But, rather genuine hope that the people of VA will change their minds.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        VA is a purple state that is tinging towards blue….

  2. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    I don’t know about you, but when it comes to defending myself from home invaders or a tyrannical government, having a gun designed to be as lethal as possible is EXACTLY the kind of gun I want and why they are protected under the 2nd amendment.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      … when it comes to defending myself from home invaders or a tyrannical government, having a gun designed to be as lethal as possible is EXACTLY the kind of gun I want and why they are protected under the 2nd amendment.

      I want to add defending myself, family, and community from a foreign invasion as well.

      While many people scoff at the possibility, I ask a simple question: why would a foreign invasion be so impossible? All a foreign adversary would have to do is bomb a few domestic military bases and sink a couple ships to have almost entirely unimpeded access to the United States — especially if that foreign adversary “smuggled” the bulk of their invasion force into the U.S. before the official invasion date. (Smuggling their invasion force could consist of moving thousands of personnel in shipping containers on a single transoceanic shipping vessel — or simply sending several thousand people over here as “tourists”.)

      And before anyone claims that a foreign adversary would have to send millions of troops to affect an invasion, I have a simple question: how many special forces operators does it take to shut down an Air Force base runway (and prevent the use of air superiority assets) when they have the element of surprise? Off the top of my head, not much more than a few dozen with sufficient firepower, especially if they only need to render the base inoperable just long enough for their air assets to finish the job.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        All a foreign adversary would have to do is bomb…

        Speaking of bombs.

        “A car suddenly bursted into flames.”

        It’s only a car explosion. It’s not a VBIED or IED. Definitely not a car bomb. It was probably just one of those electric cars that randomly blow up.

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aUppR_1538357540

        It could be anything but a bomb.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        Red Dawn?????

      3. avatar Pelvicpunch says:

        A couple 6-mans could do it, depending on the size and population density of the base of course. They’d have to be good and have alot of gear, but they could at least slow air reponse down by a HUGE margin. And by then it’d be over anyway. They probably wouldnt be going home however.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      The tyrannical people in the U.S. want you to only have airsoft, .22 rifles and non lethal pistols. That way the State is never threatened by the people. They will use any excuse that will get it done. They even claim “I support the second amendment, but there can be reasonable regulations and the supreme court agrees.”

      Americans will end up with one of these for self preservation against a person with an actual firearm:

  3. avatar Alex Waits says:

    More likely he was waiting on a fat campaign donation from a certain individual.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      He changed his mind because Bloomberg paid him to.

  4. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    “…which skirt the law to turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic weapons…”

    God forbid we find legal ways to get around your garbage, unconstitutional laws to have the weapons the Second Amendment was always intended to give us.

  5. avatar James Ivy says:

    Hence why I moved to Alabama and then ended up with Jones over Moore because of a made up scandal. That women’s house was burned down though which isn’t nice but it’s hard to be Christian all the time

    1. avatar Burner says:

      Holy sh!t that made me lol

    2. avatar Larry Jones says:

      Yeah, I live in Alabama and that charge brought against Roy Moore was just like the one against Brett Kavanaugh. It was a strategic move by the democrats. They claim it happened all those years ago but nothing was ever said about it when they were prosecuting Roy Moore for having the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. To me, if the charge was credible why weren’t they shouting it to the rooftops when he was in the hot seat over a religious reason? They didn’t need to back then because he wasn’t running for an office and wasn’t a threat to them. The democrats will spare no expense and have no morals when they are trying to win something. No proof, just an accusation is enough to cast doubt in some people’s minds and they use it and the people that make it to the hilt to try and win. If they don’t win, then they have ruined at least two people’s lives and they don’t care. If people think making AR-15’s or high capacity magazines illegal is going to solve anything then they are totally clueless. In that real bad school massacre years ago by those two boys, I could be wrong, but I don’t remember any AR-15’s that were used then. They used pistols and had pipe bombs. There’s and old saying that is true: “When guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns”. There’s another old saying: “I will give up my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it”. If the government would have enforced the gun laws that are already on the books, a lot of these people wouldn’t be able to buy one legally any way. But if you have the money, you can buy anything you want illegally on the black market. Yes, believe it or not, there is a black market in the USA. Stronger gun laws won’t stop anything, because if a person has made up their mind to kill someone then someone will be killed, either the target or the killer. If guns are outlawed it puts the criminals at a great, great advantage.

  6. avatar Chris Morton says:

    “reasonable magazine-size limits”

    Is that anything like “reasonable Jim Crow” or “reasonable anti-sodomy laws”?

  7. avatar Pennsylvania RINO Backstabbers says:

    —- URGENT —- Pennsylvania Republicans , like Vermont, Florida and others is Fast Tracking a gun SEIZURE bill , a bait & switch !!

    State Senate votes TODAY on HB – 2060 final passage , they dumped bill # SB 501 that had fewer NO DUE PROCESS and 24 hour problems

    CALL Senators …. or it’s over. — I say you ” HIT ME ” … turn em all in … NO PROOF NEEDED , No penalty for false charges !!!

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/contact.cfm?body=S

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      already have…hope they’re listening….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        …also voiced my concern with my state rep…for voting for passage…sad…always supported this guy in the past…first time I ever heard negative comments directed at him…

  8. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I’m betting that the sound of a briefcase opening had something to do with his change of heart.

    Is he really dumb enough to think that limiting magazine capacity will “buy time for law enforcement”? How long does it take to swap out a magazine?

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘How long does it take to swap out a magazine?’

      Less time than it takes a cop to drop his doughnut and flip his lights on.

    2. avatar tmm says:

      …and didn’t the Parkland criminal use 10 rd mags?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I’m not sure if they were 10 rd, but I seem to remember hearing something about the 30s not fitting in his bag, or sticking out so they couldn’t be concealed or something. Might have been 20s though. Personally I keep a 20 in the truck AR because it’s less likely to snag getting it out of the bag. But there’s 3 30s in the side pouches.

        1. Yes, the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines, even though 30-round magazines are legal and readily available in Florida, because the 10-rounders fit in his bag better.
          But how often did the mainstream media say he used 10-round magazines? Probably never.
          And what did the Parkland protesters demand? A 10-round limit on magazines, of course.

          Senator Mark Warner claims 10-round magazines would “force an active shooter to reload more often, buying law enforcement and potential shooting victims valuable seconds that could prove lifesaving.”
          Oh yeah? How well did that work in Parkland, Florida when the shooter voluntarily limited himself to 10-round magazines? It didn’t help at all.

          IMNSHO, part of the problem is that schools have this stupid “Shelter in place” policy (a.k.a. “Die in place”), which turns all the students into sitting ducks, so the shooter could be using a single-shot rifle, pistol, or shotun and still kill as many people as he wants, because nobody will try to stop him, even when he’s reloading!

          Whenever a school says “Shelter in place”, it means “Die in place” because the shooter knows he has all the time in the world to wander the halls, shooting into classrooms, because nobody will run away and nobody will try to stop him (until police get there). “Shelter in place” means nobody will try to stop him or run away, even when he’s reloading or changing magazines, they will just hide in the classrooms and wait to be shot!

          In the U.S. Army Armor Corps, we called a “shelter in place” mission a “die in place” mission (e.g., when officers order, “Hold that hill” it means “Die on that hill”). The best defense is a good offense. When you’re being ambushed, movement saves lives — either move towards the attacker and take him out, or retreat, but don’t just sit still and wait to be shot!

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          ….especially when help isn’t coming….

  9. avatar Hannibal says:

    So why does the senator enjoy the protection of the Capitol police, armed with those same weapons? They’re not on a battlefield. At least not compared to your average citizen trying to walk home from work at 3AM in Chicago.

  10. avatar Felixd says:

    So, the Kavanaugh thing is over so let’s look to the old saw about “assault weapons” until something new comes along. From reading his dribble I guess that the shrill shouting attacks of the New Left are now out, for the moment, in favor of the condescending whisper tactic that assures us that we “understand your position” so just give a little. Dick Durban from the workers paradise of Illinois will no doubt be close at hand. Democrats just love to tell use how bad things are and if we just use a little common sense, and blindly do everything they want, our world will be wonderful. Ah yes! A Democrat controlled government will surely protect us all.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “So, the Kavanaugh thing is over…”

      Since when? No news on Drudge…

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        that assessment may be a bit premature….

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Say gang since there appears to be NO punishment for threatening a senator,president or JUDGE let’s pile on…😎😄😏

  12. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    When a school shooter takes an extra 1.5 seconds to reload the police are only minutes away…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Or standing outside watching it happen.

  13. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    He makes a great point about the Bill of Reasonablenesses. As a compromise, he would surely agree that we can let the blacks sit anywhere they want….from the back of the bus all the way up to the middle of the bus. That’s fair, right, Senator?

    In the meantime, how about you take your proposed magazine limits and shove it up your magwell?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “He makes a great point about the Bill of Reasonablenesses. As a compromise, he would surely agree that we can let the blacks sit anywhere they want….from the back of the bus all the way up to the middle of the bus. That’s fair, right, Senator?”

      After all, since the old white woman is frightened by the appearance of the muscular young black man, he shouldn’t be allowed to sit next to her.

      (Taking the lack of logic “Scary looking should be banned” to its conclusion…)

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        No more weight training because it allows men to create an assault weapon out of their body. No one needs to be that big and strong — they are not Spartans going to war.

  14. avatar Bill says:

    Armed citizens will always be the greatest standing army any country can have.

    The lefts have been quiet of this far too long, the only reason they can enjoy their rich soft lifestyle is because every other country knows that nearly every American is armed. They’re not invading a country, they’re invading an army on their home turf.
    If militia were allowed to be ready and signaled by the Army when overwhelmed the chance of a hostile takeover, even well planned would be hard to complete.
    Overpowering 25 Marines is a good fight, holding your own against 300,000 armed citizens from that town might require a bit more.

  15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “(T)he features and tactical accessories that define assault weapons under this legislation were designed for a specific purpose — to give soldiers an advantage over the enemy, not to mow down students in school hallways.

    Actually, a pistol grip was designed to make the firearm more ergonomic to hold and fire. A barrel shroud was designed to make the barrel safer to hold with the off-hand, in order to stabilize the firearm when firing. The shoulder thing that goes up was designed to give Diane Feinstein the vapors.

    The bottom line is: “mowing down students in a hallway” is a direct function of intent of the shooter, and is accomplished just as easily with or without any particular firearm accessory.

    “We should acknowledge that while some will object to reasonable magazine-size limits, they would also force an active shooter to reload more often, buying law enforcement and potential shooting victims valuable seconds that could prove lifesaving.

    This is a talking point that has been so thoroughly refuted that it hardly merits discussion. It is simply an untrue assertion.

    “And let’s agree that modifications such as binary triggers and bump stocks, which skirt the law to effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic weapons, should never have been on the streets in the first place.

    Not unless we first agree that laws against fully automatic weapons, which skirt the plain wording and meaning of the second amendment, should never have been on the books in the first place.

    Regardless, neither binary triggers nor bump stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic rifles, “effectively” or otherwise.

    These are the core ideas behind the assault weapons ban.

    Bull. The core idea behind the AWB, as DiFi so directly informed “Mr. and Mrs. American”, was the first step toward turn them all in.

    Some may worry that the technical challenges of defining an assault weapon may result in a law that’s either toothless or overly restrictive of gun rights. Frankly, I share those concerns, but it’s time to stop talking about the problem and do something about it.

    So, let’s pretend that the right to keep and bear arms is legitimately subjected to strict scrutiny to justify infringement (even though the constitution clearly states shall not be infringed).

    A. Name the “problem”: what is the compelling government interest to be addressed by banning firearms with certain accessories?

    Turning to that paragon of legal expertise, Wikipedia, we find that “…the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.”

    I would argue that “preventing school shootings” or “reducing the number of casualties in school shootings” do not rise to meet such a standard. School shootings are exceedingly rare, and are state/local matters, not a compelling, federal government interest.

    B. Explain how a blanket ban on a class of firearms (or firearm accessories) is narrowly tailored to accomplish whatever compelling government interest you indicate. Even, for the sake of argument, accepting “preventing school shootings” or “reducing the number of casualties in school shootings” as the compelling interest, the remedy is not narrowly tailored.

    Not only is the remedy overbroad, but there is also no reason to believe that it will achieve the compelling government interest at all. The vast majority of rifles (or rifle accessories) to be banned are used for legitimate purposes. The vast majority of firearm-related deaths (including from school shootings) are the result of handguns, not rifles (or the subclass of rifles to be banned, with or without accessories).

    C. Explain how the remedy is the least restrictive means to accomplish the compelling government interest.

    Increasing school security hardening is less-restrictive. Providing more armed RSOs is less-restrictive. Allowing teachers and staff to carry firearms is less-restrictive. Repealing the Gun Free Schools Act is less-restrictive. Locking up nutcases before the carry out heinous acts is less-restrictive.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Explain how any restriction upon weapons of ordinary use to the military is Constitutional in light of Miller v. US (1939). The ruling specifically cites the prefatory statement as the reason military weapons MUST be protected for the People. Irony that the ruling, used to validate the NFA ban on short barrel shotguns, negated the ban on automatics and yet here we still are.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        that ruling defied logic…

  16. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    “We should acknowledge that while some will object to reasonable magazine-size limits, they would also force an active shooter to reload more often….”

    Thus giving the shooter a lighter, handier weapon which makes shifting between targets faster and more accurate. He can then drop the mag and pop in another, just like the Parkland shooter.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      When the antis talk about magazine capacity limits it is so obviously a foot-in-the-door stratagem. I’ve had people argue with me about whether or not people ‘need’ 30 rds or 20 or whatever and, of course, I’ve pointed out that it is not the “bill of needs”.

      I try turning it around and asking them what is “reasonable”. Usually they start talking in hyperbole (just like in the OP) about spraying bullets and such but I try to press them to define “reasonable”. Eventually, I’m reduced to saying , “Give me a number.” If I can press them into a number, I then ask, “wouldn’t one fewer be even better”. Play this out long enough and it forces them to admit that they really want capacity to be one or zero.

      It also often happens that people then try to steer the debate from mag limits into other assaulty features they hate. This is why I think the mag limit argument is a stratagem. They think they can get the mag limit, then ban removable magazines, then the other feature bans, then the firearm class ban, then the firearm ban and so on. Unfortunately, this appears to be a strategy that has worked for them in the past. See for example: California, also, ’94 AWB.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        You are right, of course. I shall borrow your argument next time I feel like arguing with a Mark Warner type of idiot. Mostly they aren’t worthy of our time, since in their opinion guns and by extension gun owners are evil.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Claiming that reducing the size of magazines will somehow contribute to fewer people killed is one of the coldest, bloody-minded excuses for gun-control that I’ve yet seen. Implicit in this incredibly stupid rationale is an admission that nothing can be done or ***should be done*** to confront or stop spree-killers before they have a chance to start killing people.

      Gun controllers so hate the idea of an armed citizenry being able to protect itself that they tacitly accept the idea that it’s better to simply make spree-killing a little more inconvenient instead of giving people the right to defend themselves and immediately fight back to stop an attack. All it takes is one well-armed and well trained person—the “good guy with a gun”—to effectively stop a spree-killer—who otherwise simply has to exchange one limited capacity magazine for another to keep on shooting people.

  17. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    30rds is perfectly ‘reasonable’ to me. Of course, I wasn’t asked…

    If it’s about keeping kids safe (yeah right!) how about we let the schools decide what is appropriate, whether that’s allowing CCW for trained teachers/staff, armed security officers or fricken guard towers and pitbulls and maybe use some of the monental amounts of money being wasted on this assault rife ban BS and help them implement their individual plans.
    As the father of 3 boys (all school age) their safety is a paramount concern of mine. I don’t believe for a nanosecond though that banning or neutering rifles will have ANY effect on keeping my kids safe.

    1. avatar AM says:

      The problem with letting schools decide is they come up with buckets of rocks, or little bats. With that said, I actually agree with you, as these outliers at least are the minority.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        baffling that they don’t see how ludicrous that sounds…

  18. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    He supports banning rapid-fire weapons (bump stocks) for poor people but supports fully automatic weapons for the rich. Just like a lot of people TTAG and the rest of the gun community.

    Last year after Vegas I said that it’s not just bump stocks. They’re going to go after triggers as well. And everybody just laughed at that.

    Most of the so-called “gun Community” who have their grandfather’s gun in their safe have no understanding of the Second Amendment or the mindset of a gun grabbers.

    Virginia gun owners need to get activated if they can.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Florida’s law just went into effect banning bump stocks, where bump stocks are defined as any device or kit or accessory or thingamajig that makes your gun fire faster, so even things that aren’t bump stocks are in fact according to the law, bump stocks.

      I am seeing FL now listed as a prohibited state on Franklin Armory’s binary trigger products. On Brownells FL is listed for some and not others. So those shrugging off bump stocks may well have lost the chance to get a sweet scorpion Evo binary trigger.

      No one knows for sure if regular 2 and single stage drop in trigger upgrades, rubber bands, oil, etc will land you in jail with a felony, just waiting for that test case right?

      Good job, Florida Republicrats!

      1. avatar MyName says:

        I have a bit of arthritis in my hands so there is a thing called aspirin that makes me able to shoot faster – wonder if it is legal in Florida.

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Not to worry, they’ll get around to scopes, red dots, lasers and IR pretty soon. Accuracy is far more deadly than spray and pray.

        1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

          And body armor. Can’t have the average Joe possessing bullet proof skin!

        2. avatar Rocketman says:

          That’s right. What is (in their minds) a bolt action deer rifle with a telescope sight but a “sniper rifle”? And what is a shotgun but a firearm that can fire multiple projections (buckshot) with a single pull of the trigger but a “machine gun”? Don’t kid yourself, that’s coming next.

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Maybe some laughed, but not all.

      The danger in the wording of the numerous ‘bump stock’ laws being proposed after Vegas was evident to many.

  19. avatar Aven says:

    Warner changed because he is trying to gain favor with the liberal carpetbaggers who have taken over Virginia. Virginia is red except for small blue spots in Northern Virginia, Tidewater and cities where large colleges dominate. The problem is that the small blue spots are where the majority of the population live. I fear the Virginia I have loved for the last 71 years is no more.

    1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

      Virginia isn’t red anymore. This state has fallen, as the 2017 election showed us.

      I’m not surprised Warner changed his tune. The Dems in this state need not fear the voting gun owner, as they don’t show up in this state.

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      Amen, Aven. But it’s not the colleges that are the problem (although Marxist professors don’t help), but the sweet, sweet government teat at which Tidewater and the DC suburbs suck. When these suburbs boast the highest average wealth in the country, we have a problem.

      As I’ve said before, there’s no gain in giving up and moving to Texas. I love Virginia and will keep voting, paying my VCDL dues, and proselytizing, however quixotically. I believe Warner was moderate when he ran, but no longer.

      If we can put up an appealing challenger for a change instead of mad Corey Stewart, we could flip a Senate seat back. Va Dems understand how to smile out of both sides of their mouths. Republicans better learn how to politick and not just play to the angry red counties. Warner will be vulnerable. Really liked Jill Vogel, and she actually gained the endorsement of the Richmond TD and Virginian-Pilot. I’m sure there are others.

  20. avatar aircooled says:

    Translation: Chuck Schumer said he had a nice juicy committe assignment reserved for me if I would only just do one little thing for him…

  21. avatar Sian says:

    “We should acknowledge that while some will object to reasonable magazine-size limits, they would also force an active shooter to reload more often, buying law enforcement and potential shooting victims valuable seconds that could prove lifesaving.”

    No it shouldn’t. It’s never mattered in the past. It won’t matter in the future. These killers pick their targets, and are able to reload at their leisure, because nobody is shooting back. Don’t forget the lessons of VA tech, committed with pistols and reduced-capacity magazines. On top of this most murders in this country are committed with fewer than ten shots fired. Magazine restrictions primarily reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to fight off multiple attackers.

    “And let’s agree that modifications such as binary triggers and bump stocks, which skirt the law to effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic weapons, should never have been on the streets in the first place.”

    Let’s not. Show the evidence that either has an impact on public safety, or gtfo.

  22. avatar Gman says:

    “And let’s agree that modifications such as binary triggers and bump stocks, which skirt the law to effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic weapons, should never have been on the streets in the first place.

    Why are we never using Miller v US (1939) to refute these claims? Though this ruling (mistakenly) upheld the ban on short barrel shotguns, the opinion language called upon the prefatory statement of the 2nd Amendment and stated that weapons of ordinary military use ARE and MUST BE specifically protected.

  23. avatar Ogre says:

    Sen. Mark Warner is a lib/prog chameleon and always has been – he goes where the money is. His words reverberate well at the WaPo (Pravda on the Potomac) because he wants to be seen as packing up with the anti-2A forces in the Senate. These senators sense weakness and are now howling for blood. Sen. Mark Kaine is the same or worse. We have VCDL in Virginia, an organization that has been very good at advancing pro-gun bills and defeating gun-grab legislation on the state level, but they don’t act upon the U.S. HofR or the Senate. I live in NoVA, and my vote is wasted here except in state-wide races. As one commenter pointed out, Virginia used to be red, but has now gone purple due to the flood of lib/progs in NoVA and the college towns. NoVA is solidly blue. I suspect that if Warner or his ilk succeeds in passing any anti-gun laws at the state or federal level, the amount of non-compliance will amaze them. There aren’t enough federal agents to seize guns, and the local cops will not (especially if a couple of them have been torched by angry gun-owners). So we’ll see whether Warner’s words mean anything or if he’s just sounding off, and where it goes from there.

    1. avatar blahpony says:

      I’m right there with you. I’m in NoVA as well. I am a paid up member of VCDL (among others). I open carry a pistols all over this area. The local police have never said anything to me. Well, one did. He wanted to know what I was carrying. Then we talked a bit and he said he just bought a long slide Glock and couldn’t wait to take it to the range.

  24. avatar Draven says:

    Cool, Mark, so, you won’t mind in a month if I vote against you…

  25. avatar jwm says:

    Keep beating that dead horse. We’ll have Trump for a second term and a loaded scotus before it’s over.

  26. avatar Oliver says:

    I like how he not so subtly ends his statement with “…its time to stop talking about the problem and do something about it.” Implying that there is a problem in the first place, when there most definitely isn’t. A very cheap but often used debating tactic.

  27. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    Standard-capacity magazine bans will give the police more time to intervene? Actually, if the next massacre is anything like Parkland, it will give the police more time to stand around with their thumbs up their @$$es while the killer makes his escape.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      And goes to a few fast food places, after a day of easy “work,” to wait around to be arrested.

  28. avatar Andy says:

    Oh good lord! Another dumbass has been made. Go ahead, make your mag limits so the active shooter, as if that is different than a shooter, will have yet another law to ignore while those that can counter the threat will be regulated to a minimum amount ballistic justice. You people just don’t get it. And, yes, the phrase you people used in the most unflattering manner possible.

  29. avatar Timothy K. Toroian says:

    When they lie (like a rug) can we get them thrown out of office for violating their oath of office? Or when they vote to restrict firearms because it is the violation of the Constitution. Or at least threaten our own representative or senator just to keep them on their toes.

  30. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher "they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    By his logic,” magazine restrictions would buy police officers more time while he reloads.” So by his logic magazines that are capable of being quickly changed should also be restricted. I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack but even I know what” Shall Not Be Infringed” means. Evidently politicians have the right to lie. I swear to uphold the Constitution was just a lie.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Once they get magazines down to 4 rounds they will demand they be fixed. See califuckingfornia.
      All good and well until.you need more rounds to defend yourself. Not mark warners problem or concern.

  31. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…And let’s agree that modifications such as ”

    No.

    You can ask, but I won’t agree with you.

  32. avatar GS650G says:

    All.this focus on the gun operation and limits on what we can own while no focus on the dirtbag committing crimes. That’s because they want the shitheads to vote for them and get their shithead friends and families to support them.as well.
    Not one suggestion on getting criminals off the street.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      venting on websites such as this is just preaching to the choir….need to take the fight to them on their home ground…like the Washington Post…

  33. avatar David Thompson says:

    “(magazine limits) would also force an active shooter to reload more often, buying law enforcement and potential shooting victims valuable seconds that could prove lifesaving.”

    You know what else buys valuable time in a mass shooting event?

    Someone shooting back.

  34. avatar Lamar Breshears says:

    must be election time for him to make a comment like that. I guess he forgets that the purpose of the 2A is to protect us from the government if they start to infringe on our constitutional rights, not to “mow down school kids.”
    I will need a “standard” 30 rd mag if it ever comes to that (can you even call a 30 rd mag “high capacity” anymore?).

    They should really teach classes to Congress on the original purpose of each article and amendment of the Constitution. That way they wouldn’t have an excuse when crap spews out of their attorney mouths.

  35. avatar Ken in commie kalifornia says:

    Warner, you know damn well, opening that door you masturbate over, is only the beginning. HISTORY PROVES IT. NO NO NO. I as a LEGAL LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN, is not the problem.

  36. “(T)he features and tactical accessories that define assault weapons under this legislation were designed for a specific purpose — to give soldiers an advantage over the enemy, not to mow down students in school hallways.

    And yet, these soldiers were not apparently able to exercise their advantages over the enemy that is mowing down students in school hallways.

  37. avatar Frank says:

    Own and create what ever pleases you because, when the you know what, hits the fan and the trumpet sounds all rules are off the table.

  38. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Virginia used to be quite a good state Constitutionally 20-25 years ago. Then the Socialists in government started to get a foothold little by little. Over time they’ve pretty much taken over. Too bad as at one time it was a mecca for sportsmen. Between those like Warner and Caine and their ability to be reelected you have to wonder about them as a people. I shutter to think if Hillary and Caine had been elected. And as bad as it would have been with Hillary as President, imagine if she had died in office and Caine had been promoted to POTUS? Oh jeez, this country would have been toste.

  39. avatar Alan says:

    Two questions come to mind re the gentleman’s changeof mind.

    1. What cause his change of mind of thinking?
    2. What the hell is an Assault Weapon anyhow?

    1. avatar Larry says:

      1. My guess would be large sums of money.
      2. An AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select fire version, semi-auto or full auto of the AR-15.

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