Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia Dems Have a Razor-Thin Majority, Not a Mandate

—

by

Bob Rayner
in , ,

by Kerry Dougherty

Gosh, it seems like it was just last month that Virginia Democrats accused Republicans of being too extreme on abortion and used that wedge issue to gain a slight edge in the General Assembly. (The GOP favors a reasonable 15-week limit, preventing the grisly practice of late-term abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger.)

Now Democrats have shown who the true extremists are. They’ve introduced a constitutional amendment that would guarantee abortion rights, with no restrictions.

Fooled again, Virginia.

After the 2023 elections, Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate: 51-49 in the House and 21-19 in the Senate. The governor can’t veto a constitutional amendment, so look for all of the abortion enthusiasts in Richmond to merrily support this measure. It needs to pass the General Assembly in two consecutive years and then has to be approved by voters. So this guarantees the Dems will be pimping this issue for the next several years.

Sigh.

They’re just getting started with a slew of bills that they know Gov. Glenn Youngkin WILL veto. The Democrats simply want to get Republican members on the record with “no” votes so they can demagogue the issues in the campaigns.

For instance, with their first bills of the 2024 session – HB1 and SB1 -Democrats want to raise Virginia’s minimum wage – presently at $12 an hour – to $15 by Jan. 1, 2026.

Never mind that when the minimum wage jumps, so do prices. Economics was never the left’s strong suit, as witnessed by the national catastrophe known as “Bidenomics.”

The majority party also wants to ban the most popular rifle in use today: the AR-15, which they call “an assault-style weapon.” There was a time when a number of Virginia Democrats supported the Second Amendment. We’ll soon see how many are left in Richmond with the crop of newly elected far-left lawmakers.

As usual, the Dems can’t resist demonstrating their deep affection for criminals. They’ve signaled that they’ll push for the automatic restoration of voting rights for felons. This may garner some Republican support. It’s not objectionable as long as the felon in question has successfully completed probation and paid all court costs and fines.

If Democrats had their way, criminals would be voting from prison.

This is just the start. Look for a cornucopia of crazy coming out of Richmond in the coming weeks as Democrats mistake their razor-thin majority for a mandate.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited. 

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

90 responses to “Virginia Dems Have a Razor-Thin Majority, Not a Mandate”

  1. Chip Avatar
    Chip

    Strong article – thanks for posting it for all to read. Contemporary democrats are Marxists and Marxism is itself a mandate. That ideology must be purged from the Commonwealth in order for the Virginia motto to once again ring true.

  2. Theron Keller Avatar
    Theron Keller

    “After the 2024 elections, Democrats have majorities…”

    Typo, I believe, should be 2023!

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Premature but probably accurate nonetheless.

      1. Theron Keller Avatar
        Theron Keller

        No, because the 2024 elections do not alter the number of seats held by each party in the General Assembly.

        Saying that the Democrats have majorities after the 2024 elections is the same thing, logically, as saying the Democrats have majorities after next Saturday. It may be correct, but there is no correlation.

        1. Not Today Avatar
          Not Today

          I didn’t say there was a correlation. I said the pronouncement was premature. Given the self-inflicted headwinds Rs are facing, it’s not outlandish. The educated (at-home and at-work) suburban mom crowd I frequent finds Rs tone, policies, and priorities angry, violent, and scary WRT women’s issues. There seems to be no desire on their part to change course. In our, largely personally conservative circle, the Rs BARELY squeaked out a win. As more locals die off, I don’t see a favorable conservative trend. Unless the cons successfully drive local youth away? That’s happening too. Maybe they hope grans who have to travel out of state to see their grandbabies (b/c kids refiuse to live in a con state) are persuadables? What happens when the kids deny them visits b/c politics and lack of elderly self-control?

          1. Theron Keller Avatar
            Theron Keller

            “There seems to be no desire on their part to change course.”

            You’re just trying to dig yourself out of a hole now, but when you are in a hole, the first step is to STOP DIGGING. :-O

            The Republicans CANNOT change the ratio of the General Assembly in 2024, unless there happens to be a special election to replace some random member who has had to vacate their seat for some reason.

            The author’s use of “2024” is obviously a typo, as it cannot possibly contribute any meaningful addition to the article.

          2. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Yeah, I’ve been saying the same thing for years. The R’s FIRST STEP IS TO STOP DIGGING a hole with suburban women. A typo, while inadvertent, can also be a bit of schadenfreude.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The Democrats simply want to get Republican members on the record with “no” votes so they can demagogue the issues in the campaigns.”

    Or Republicans could just vote to pass legislation that is supported by the electorate instead of voting “no”… 🤷‍♂️

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      As you noted before, what’s wrong with the law the way it is? No legislation is needed. Politicians should be like Docs. First do no harm.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        As demonstrated by Youngkin and crowd, Republicans are not satisfied with the “law as it is”. Hence the need to put up protections against them in the Virginia Constitution.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Youngkin and the Repubs were advocating a moderate law that you railed against because there was nothing wrong with the law as it is. You advocated that there was no need to change current law.

          The Dems demagogued against Youngkin’s position and now you’re advocating for the Dems extreme amendment to the state Constitution.

          That exposes your argument for letting the perfectly reasonable current law be as simply trollish.

          Please do better on this issue and abandon your advocacy for this extreme Constitutional amendment. I would much rather be upvoting your good comments than rebutting your negative trolling.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “You advocated that there was no need to change current law.”

            And as I noted, Republicans said that if/when they come into power (even briefly) they will restrict abortions further. There is effectively no difference between current law and the proposed amendment. It just makes it harder for Republicans to change it in the future.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “If Democrats had their way, criminals would be voting from prison.”

    Can you explain to me why they shouldn’t be able to? At a minimum explain why they need to remain disenfranchised through probation?

    1. Chip Avatar
      Chip

      Imprisoned felons have been convicted of violating the law and have self-disenfranchised themselves. Allowing those felons to vote for those who write the laws would constitute an unwise conflict of interest.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Conflict of interest…? I think not.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          That is very true, you often do not. But occasionally you do and that shows you can. Be nice to see more of that and less of the other.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      It is really pretty simple. Some people commit crimes that are so offensive against civilized society that the country has decided that the perpetrators forfeit some of their rights as citizens. We generally call those felonies. Voting is among those rights that can be lost through criminal activity.

      Perps should be grateful that we have established a path to reenfranchisement for some criminals who have demonstrated that they are not recidivists by successfully completing probation. Bitching that does not happen upon release as they or their apologizers would prefer is profoundly ungrateful, and it ignores the statistics on recidivism.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I know what we do. Still not clear on the why. The laws are rooted in Jim Crow though…

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Gee, guess I wasn’t blunt enough.

          People can screw up so badly the rest of us restrict the ways they can damage our country. It makes a lot of sense.

          Trying to relate it to racism is disgusting. It applies to felons of all colors and other attributes.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “People can screw up so badly the rest of us restrict the ways they can damage our country.”

            Hmmmm… so you also are saying restrict them because we are worried about who they would vote for…

            “It makes a lot of sense.”

            Not really.

            “Trying to relate it to racism is disgusting.”

            Yes, it was disgusting but that is what happened. It was something about the people who passed the laws being worried about who the disenfranchised would vote for otherwise.

            Edit: And, of course, they can’t vote but they can serve in Congress…

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            By their acts they have demonstrated that their judgement is so severely impaired that out of concern for our country they are disqualified from rights guaranteed to the rest of us. That includes things like voting and possessing firearms.

            Yes indeed, left to their own devices felons might well vote for people who would grant them special privileges instead of sanctions.

            They might even start electing some of their own. It can happen here, Dems elected a felon to the GA last month.

            Restrictions on voting rights that were based on discrimination were outlawed by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago (Hunter v. Underwood, 1985). We subsequently have a long history of applying those restrictions fairly.

            You might try extolling that victory for justice rather than exhuming long outlawed racial issues to stir discontent. You can do better, please do.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Yes indeed, left to their own devices felons might well vote for people who would grant them special privileges instead of sanctions.”

            Many people vote for their own self-interest over that of the greater community. There nothing wrong with that and is not a good reason to disenfranchise.

            “Restrictions on voting rights that were based on discrimination were outlawed by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago (Hunter v. Underwood, 1985). We subsequently have a long history of applying those restrictions fairly.”

            That does not change the fact that these laws were originally designed to disproportionately disenfranchise minorities legally and continue to have that impact. They are especially insidious when one considers the impact racially biased charging and sentencing had on the minority population in the US in recent years.

            You must stop with the personal attacks (regardless of how mild) now if you wish to continue to interact. I have made no such character statements to you and I expect the same respect in return. This is your one and only warning.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Some people commit acts in their own self interest that are so harmful to our society that we restrict their ability to do further harm. That is a perfect reason to disenfranchise.

            Some laws may have been enacted for racial reasons. Those were clearly wrong, and have been outlawed by the Supreme Court for close to 40 years. That is longer than most of the people in the US have been alive. Again I encourage you to celebrate that justice being done, and abandon trying to stir up trouble by picking at long outlawed grievances.

            You are a bright guy. You can do much better and have. I am not shy at upvoting you when you are constructive and do well. My encouragement to you is to reject trollishness and to pursue that higher path. That is in no way a personal attack. It is an appeal to your better nature, and one that I hope you will value.

    3. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      We urgently need voters to be responsible and vote for what is in the long term best interest of the country, rather than their own short term self interest.

      And you think the demographic most likely to do that is convicted felons?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Sorry but democracy is not like “we get to disenfranchise you because of who you might vote for”. Again, that is exactly how we ended up with Jim Crow.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Youngkin has an opportunity to lead. There are issues that do need attention, not the least of which is the budget which is a good think that he did not get the tax cuts he advocated for , if he had, we would have been looking at a serious budget shortfall.

    So the two biggies are K-12 education and Medicaid. There are some different ways to go on them but a good way would be a way that had both Dem and GOP support. Amazing that those two were not addressed last year by the GOP and Youngkin as
    they seemed heck-bent of fiscal disaster.

    On abortion – he could also lead by trying to find some middle ground rather than continues the no-win approach the GOP continues to pursue.

    We’re gonna see what kind of Governor Youngkin is going to be.
    The easy part is over.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      You do realize Surovell, Scott, and Lucas are going to have to play ball as well. Tricky little thing called the veto in Youngkin’s pocket. Line item too.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        They will, I agree. But Youngkin wins if he leads even if they won’t play.

        That’s why I say it is an opportunity… there is stuff that needs to be done… if he engages the
        issue with a not unreasonable proposal, and they run off, it’s on them.

        In terms of budget and taxes, “we” the State has certain fundamental responsibilities. They cannot run away from that responsibility without incurring harm. The GOP did this for a number of years by not accepting the Medicaid Expansion and it did cost them. Youngkin tries for permanent tax cuts and the legislators say “no”, not because they”re pro-tax but because it’s fiscally irresponsible to do tax cuts when you KNOW that k-12 and Medicaid funding are queued up and Youngkin was
        essentially gambling on a forecast that he did not know the answer to and legislators were unwilling to go along.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          “We” the state? Oh my Mr. Larry. Now that they have secured our votes it has become “They” the state and we the children who are hoping for a few crumbs to fall from the table.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Sounds bad, eh? What happened to special needs kids back in the day before the courts
            and the Fed said YOU WILL take care of their needs! If we gave that decision BACK to all
            voters, how many would bail?

          2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Not following you Mr. Larry. The only special needs kid I think of is the current occupant of the White House.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9114824e314aa9ceab5d8f90c0e37db708f47b2817c3219ebbb12b85ec120876.png

          4. Chip Avatar
            Chip

            I find your assessment to be lacking in acceptable comprehensive scope, Sir. There are so, so many other special needs kids in and about the White House who require attention…we still do not yet know which of those left the Cocaine behind. And, we must address that inhabitant of Number One Observatory Circle who commutes in an electric school bus, but never arrives anywhere.

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      “On abortion – he could also lead by trying to find some middle ground…”

      Huh? 15 weeks is not radical.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        yeah it is. look at what has happened to some women with last term problems
        in the states that have this. It’s totally one-size fits all no matter what. Top-down dumb.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Middle ground between reducing restrictions on abortions and further restrictions might have been no changes to current law. People unhappy on both sides. Youngkin, however, needed to give his religious right something to go vote for so he opted to push for more restrictions.

        The ironic thing was (as pointed out by contributors here) that it would have effectively done nothing to reduce abortions in Virginia – a purely self-serving political position – but I digress.

        His move actually motivated more on the left who are tired of this being a political pendulum issue. The proposed amendment (if passed) will effectively put the issue behind us for good.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          So now you’re back to taking the other side of the argument again. First one side, then the other, and now back to where you started, You really have no integrity. Is that part of the troll operational handbook?

          You have done better, that is a much better look and one we can applaud.

  6. Not Today Avatar
    Not Today

    Where was all this energy in opposition to majority rule, however narrow, when McConnell was holding up the Senate approval for Merrick Garland? Where is it when Tuberville is holding up 400+ military nominations? The truth is that the Dobbs decision forced more people into a more absolutist stance on abortion and not in favor of the conservative position. The truth is that the vast, vast majority of Americans favor a return to the assault-weapons ban era so MORE CHILDREN AND CIVILIAN INNOCENTS WILL LIVE. The truth is that Americans on the left and right support common-sense gun safety legislation that will keep ammosexuals from serving as domestic merchants of death. It’s clear carrying water for a losing series of arguments is triggering, pun intended. Here’s what it triggers…

    – Proposals to track and trace guns used in crimes to the handful of dealers who supply entire states/regions
    – Proposals to ensure accused and convicted domestic abusers, violent mental patients, stalkers, InCels, assorted ammosexuals like Jennifer and James Crumbley, etc. (the majority of gun criminals) have their weapons removed
    – Proposals to ban the civilian ownership of high capacity magazines, assault-rifles, modification kits, and weapons of war
    – Proposals to criminalize the sale/production/distribution and “how to” instructions of 3D-printed ghost guns

    And, OH YEAH, proposals to pay people a living wage so they can provide for themselves/their own families and not be so angry and hyperbolic all the time and feel the need to take from others what they cannot earn on their own.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      Absolutely they do not. As long as D’s are allowing criminals to prey on the regular folks, there will be guns. Did you not see ALL the records settings gun sales, especially to minorities and women? We will NOT give up our rights. EVER. Time and time again, the illegalness of control is kicked back. I say control because Chicago has gun control, so does NY. The crime is out of control.
      Any BS passed will get vetoed or shot down in the courts but we should NOT have to waste taxpayer $$$ on BS gun laws that are not the problem. Its C U L T U R E.

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Keep thinking “MUH RIGHTS” to own weapons of war are more important than infants in cars, teen drivers playing loud music, college students, and weekend bar revelers. Don’t stop believin’. All those untrained, unskilled folks are reacting to the threats posed by people who think like you. I truly wish it were not so but it is. Violence, hatred, fear and anger beget more of the same. In the last year, I visited both of the cities you decry in their urban core and survived (lol) unscathed, unmolested, and unbothered.

        Also, please define ad hominem. I don’t think it means what you think it does.

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Please define “weapons of war.”

          https://www.amazon.com/1220-Straight-Fighting-Utility-Leather/dp/B000BSWE9Q#:~:text=The%20traditional%20Ka%2DBar%20marked%20for%20Army%20personnel%20featuring%20a,Flat%20grind%20for%20extreme%20sharpness.

          1. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Why? Why do you need a definition? We had a working definition that prevented the mass casualties/carnage we have today for two decades. It is legal to both define weapons of war/high-powered assault weapons and we should restrict civilian access to them.

            WE SHOULD DO THAT…NOW.

            As SCOTUS said WRT porn, you know it when you see it. Weapons designed for or used by militaries and/or armed groups, weapons designed to be maximally lethal and create wounds that aren’t survivable regardless of who they are aimed at, weapons designed to be repeatedly fired with such speed, velocity, and damage potential that unarmed civilians stand little chance of defending themselves. Those are weapons of war. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

            No one should legally possess or train with these weapons for sport. Nor should they be given to children for ‘fun’. Ammosexuals can sit and spin on that.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            agree. It’s pretty easy on weapons IMO also. A defensive weapon does NOT need to be one that is capable of killing 45 people in 5 minutes or less. And yet we insist on allowing people who are clearly mentally ill to purchase such weapons while blaming the killing on a failure to get “help”

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Far-left politics is a mental illness.

            https://thepostmillennial.com/revealed-louisville-mass-shooter-targeted-rich-white-people-to-protest-2a-manifesto

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            selling highly lethal weapons with high capacity magazines with high energy ammunition to mentally ill folks is what’s really an “illness”.

          5. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “highly lethal weapons”

            All firearms are “highly lethal.”

            “high energy ammunition”

            5.56/.223 is actually on the low side of rifle cartridges.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/26b98902df5786fdcb955d19e6e94cfd98b3de612bb2371c6ecd03b0ed94081b.jpg

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            nope. weapons with high capacity magazines that contain high-velocity/high energy ammunication that can and do kill quickly..

            and we ARE selling these weapons to people who ARE known to have mental illness!

          7. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Facts are facts. You are stating things that are demonstrably untrue.

            The ammunition for an AR-15 is considerably lower on the energy scale than most rifle calibers, including my deer rifle.

            Whatever laws are proposed or enacted, they should be based on accurate information, not fantasies spouted by those who have no knowledge of the subject.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You CAN buy high energy high velocity ammunition for the AR and mass killers do just that.
            laws need to be enacted instead of opposed. Find a law you CAN and WILL support that WILL
            stop mentally ill people from buying deadly weapons and killing people. No more excuses.
            Mass killings by mentally ill people are very real.. not “fantasy”. “Fantasy” is watching this
            happen over and over and still oppose dealing with it in any meaningful way.

          9. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            LarrytheG:
            “You CAN buy high energy high velocity ammunition for the AR and mass killers do just that.”

            Larry, you are totally out of your element, and keep spouting nonsense. I’ve been a shooting instructor off and on for over 40 years and I assure you, mass shooters do not buy some “special” ammunition for the AR-15s. If you shoot someone with a firearm and hit a vital organ, that person will die. That’s the bottom line. Your focus on things you do not understand is a waste of time and energy.

            LarrytheG:
            “Fantasy is watching this
            happen over and over and still oppose dealing with it in any meaningful way.”

            I am trying to deal with shootings in an effective way, but unfortunately you are not.

            Dealing with shootings effectively requires understanding the specifics of what happened and what might have been done differently to bring about a different result.

            That’s why I want to read the investigation report about the UVA shooting. There’s an example of a shooting in Virginia that could have and should have been avoided. We need to know what happened and why.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            tell the truth Nathan. Do you know what a hollow-point bullet is or other “enhanced” ammunition that is sometimes actually said to be have “better killing power”?

            re: ” I am trying to deal with shootings in an effective way, but unfortunately you are not.

            Dealing with shootings effectively requires understanding the specifics of what happened and what might have been done differently to bring about a different result.”

            total BS IMO. We often KNOW after the fact that the killer had known, documented mental issues
            like the Maine shooter did and yet what have we actually done about such cases?

            ZIPPO because the gun rights folks refuse to deal with the issues.. It’s “thoughts and prayers” and ” We need better mental health services” and little more than that.

            The whole thing is bogus IMO. It’s like arguing that we really don’t know what causes drunk
            driving and we ought not do anything about it until we “really know”.

            what a bunch of nonsense!

          11. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Much is known, but apparently not by you.

            I’ve followed mass shootings with AR-15s and have never read of any using “enhanced” ammo as you call it. The shooter is normally at point blank range and it’s not a factor.

            Show me one that has.

            Any firearm in the hands of a homicidal maniac will likely result in deaths. Less lethal guns or ammunition is what’s truly nonsense. It’s like advocating for knifes that won’t cut or baseball bats that can’t deliver blunt force.

            Kentucky and Maine have different laws than Virginia, and neither of us can vote in those states, so lets talk about the situation here.

            I showed you why Christopher Darnell Jones was able to buy his guns, and you refuse to address that. Your reluctance is very telling.

            If you want to effectively deal with shootings in Virginia, you have to follow the facts of the shootings and laws here. I have done that. You have not.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6adf3affc582f46fbf9573fffd901c874f93135fcc712cab90a23670284be11.png

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/263931/

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3894eac4d85690e8fe7c186a9617a6369b99f84cf6b3c9f89210f1d659844600.png

            https://abcnews.go.com/Health/semi-automatic-weapons-nashville-shooting-cause-damage/story?id=98204429

            re: ” Any firearm in the hands of a homicidal maniac will likely result in deaths. Less lethal guns or ammunition is what’s truly nonsense. It’s like advocating for knifes that won’t cut or baseball bats that can’t deliver blunt force.”

            Indeed and exactly why those folks should not be allowed to buy weapons that can kill far more people than a knife or a revolver or baseball bat.

            You folks have no sense of proportionality.

            20 people dead is no worse than one or two apparently.

          13. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I’m well aware of what various calibers and ammunition types will do. Much more than you are for sure. What’s your point?

            Hunting ammunition is specifically designed to take down game quickly to prevent the animal from suffering. It’s also important that the animal doesn’t run off and die somewhere the hunter can’t find it. When shot, the animal will likely die either way, but one is more humane and allows the meat to be used.

            Self defense ammo is also designed for maximum impact. Self defense is about stopping the threat from reaching you to do you harm. One doesn’t use target ammo for self defense, because you want to stop the person from getting to you. It’s of little benefit to shoot an attacker if they still have the ability to get to you and kill you, even if that person dies later on.

            Hunters and people who concealed carry pay attention to such things. Mass shooters typically don’t. Mass shooters just want a large body count, and don’t care if their victims suffer.

            If you plan on going hunting, or want to know a good cartridge for self defense, then I’ll gladly help you to understand what’s available and how to navigate your many options.

            But if you are hoping to stop mass shootings, this whole line of thought is a complete waste of time. It will have zero impact.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the point on the ammunition is that there ARE various kinds including high velocity, hollow point, etc… the kind that can do far more damage than the plain jane type and it’s an option apparently for all who buy guns…

            I used to hunt but no longer. Those who actually do hunt for meat are also fairly careful about
            humane practices whereas others in it for the “sport” not so much.

            Self defense I’m fine with. Weapons that are clearly purchased to kill others, not so much.

            re: ” But if you are hoping to stop mass shootings, this whole line of thought is a complete waste of time. It will have zero impact.”

            pretty much works for most every other country on earth. They all also do have mass killings,
            but not like we do. We simply do not keep weapons out of the hands of people intent on
            mass killings. We don’t keep weapons out of the hands of mentally ill nor those in many
            domestic violence situations. Our gun death rate is like 3rd world countries with no
            restrictions on guns.

          15. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “Self defense I’m fine with. Weapons that are clearly purchased to kill others, not so much.”

            Same thing.

          16. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            nope.

            You don’t need the weapon that mass killers like to have effective self defense. It’s a false choice IMO. I can think of all manner of even deadlier weaponry to make that argument and it would
            be just as false.

          17. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Your focus is clearly on what guns to ban, not what would actually impact shootings.

            We didn’t improve drunk driving statistics by banning specific cars or alcohol. Improvements were made by changing human behavior, largely through tough enforcement of drunk-driving laws.

            I have already demonstrated that enforcement of existing gun laws would have put the UVA shooter in prison, and taken away his right to ever buy or own a firearm. But you don’t seem to care.

            Christopher Jones purchased two firearms before the shooting. It’s not been disclosed which one was used to kill the students, but either one would accomplish what he set out to do. One was a Ruger AR-556 (rifle), the other was a Glock G45 9mm (handgun). If those were specific guns were banned at the time, he would have just used something else. The outcome would have been the same. Compare that (your solution) with him being in prison, and not allowed to have a gun after he gets out.

          18. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The problem is we don’t deal with the crime until AFTER. I’m not out to ban guns at all. If I had my way, I’d have a Mac 10 or a sawed off pump for protection but allowing that for anyone else including the mentally ill and others out to just kill others would be a huge downside. Prison does not stop the ones who will kill and often provide signs of that intent. Other countries have murderers also… and they do use other weaponry but the difference is the killing power of the weapon. A knife can kill others but it’s harder and easier to stop the guy. A fully automatic weapon, or a grenade or many other truly deadly weapons capable of killing many people is obviously something we won’t allow even though they’re also “arms”. What we’ve done is essentially allow
            technology to produce much deadlier weapons than existed before except as banned weaponry.

            So I’m ALL FOR weapons for home and personal defense but at the same time we all KNOW there ARE folks out there that intend to kill others and don’t give a rats behind about “defense”.

            We’re the only country in the developed world that can’t seem to get ourselves straight on this.
            We’re more like third world countries where folks walk around with full auto weaponry and worse.

          19. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The knife I linked to is used by the U.S. Army and therefore IS a weapon of war.

            Your AR-15 is not.

            In fact, the AR-15 cannot be used to hunt deer in Virginia (or most states), as it is considered insufficiently lethal and not a humane way to harvest deer.

            “Rifles, .23 caliber or larger, may be used to hunt deer during the firearms deer season…”

            https://www.eregulations.com/virginia/hunting/local-firearms-ordinances#:~:text=It%20shall%20be%20lawful%20to%20hunt%20with%20rifles%20larger%20than,10%20feet%20above%20ground%20level.

            If you wish to stop mass shootings, you might consider looking at what inspires them.

            https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1727456797173125312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1727456797173125312%7Ctwgr%5Ee580bf9c3db9d0b94e98c230361f46d581c0e90d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt%2F2023%2F11%2F23%2Flouisville-mass-shooter-targeted-upper-class-white-people-to-spur-gun-control-n2390105

          20. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a0ca890cf6dafda9f42fa06cba05e1e33ad1c83f5753abbcd91a65f34da78d4.png

          21. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “The man who killed five people at a Louisville, Kentucky, bank in April was motivated by his outrage over the nation’s gun laws, which he considered lax and hoped a bloody rampage of white victims would spur politicians into action, according to a police report released Tuesday that contained excerpts from the killer’s journal.”

            https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisville-bank-shooter-massacred-upper-class-white-people-highlight-lax-gun-laws-journal

          22. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The man was mentally ill. We are selling weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a few minutes to people who are mentally ill.

          23. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92d868a188bff7d8d06f121286fffcae5f52395d3a2ef5390e4d8372a5ad29f8.png

          24. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The shooter’s condition was never entered into the system. Background checks are only effective if prohibited people are flagged.

          25. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We ARE selling deadly weapons to people who are KNOWN to be mentally ill.

            over, and over, and over… and we make excuses… why we can’t stop doing it.

          26. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “We ARE selling deadly weapons to people who are KNOWN to be mentally ill.”

            Known by whom?

            You keep stating the obvious and repeating yourself, but apparently have nothing to offer. Do you not understand how background checks for firearms work?

            If you want to make a suggestion, it would be really helpful if you would educate yourself about firearms and background checks in Virginia.

          27. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “We ARE selling deadly weapons to people who are KNOWN to be mentally ill.”

            Known by whom?

            You keep stating the obvious and repeating yourself, but apparently have nothing to offer. Do you not understand how background checks for firearms work?

            If you want to make a suggestion, it would be really helpful if you would educate yourself about firearms and background checks in Virginia.

          28. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            do you READ the reports. I don’t need to “educate” myself, you need to. And you need to acknowledge reality and support a path forward instead of essentially defending the sale
            of deadly weapons to those who should not be able to obtain them.

            The current system of “firearms and background checks” clearly FAILS, that’s all the “learning”one needs to know to take action.

            We want to jail homeless people who steal but give a pass to people who kill.

          29. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            LarrytheG :
            “I don’t need to “educate” myself, you need to. ”

            Unbelievable. Ignorance is not helpful in solving complex problems.

            LarrytheG :
            “The current system of “firearms and background checks” clearly FAILS, that’s all the “learning “one needs to know to take action.”

            Knowledge is helpful, and facts actually matter.

            For example, Christopher Darnell Jones (UVA shooter) committed a felony, but passed a background check and was therefore able to purchase the guns used to kill his fellow students. Do you know why? That happened because the judge have him a suspended sentence, which reduced his conviction to a misdemeanor. A felony on his record would have caused him to fail the background check to purchase his guns.

            Details matter Larry. The laws already in place would have prevented him from legally buying or owning a firearm, but lenient sentencing allowed him to.

            So you say you want to stop shootings? Deal with that.

            https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/alleged-uva-shooter-christopher-darnell-jones-gun-possession-history-university-of-virginia/65-3f8c1766-c711-4628-8d5f-c823e587650c

          30. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not “ignorant” at all to observe simple facts like we are selling deadly weapons to mentally ill would be killers and we act like we really don’t understand …

            We took that approach to drunk drivers for a number of years until we finally admitted that we needed to stop making excuses and take serious actions to reduce it.

            We can and should do the same with the selling of deadly weapons to mentally ill people.

            When a mentally ill person can go buy not one, but multiple weapons with high capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition and turn around and kill people, we are failing basic protection of society from deranged folks IMO.

          31. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “We can and should do the same with the selling of deadly weapons to mentally ill people.”

            I have no problem with preventing those who are a danger to themselves or others from buying guns. In Virginia, we have the laws and reporting necessary to do that already. People just need to follow through.

            Virginia shooting of late have been the result of lack of follow through, not lack of gun laws.

            Newport News shooting – People saw something and said something, but nothing was done.
            UVA Shooting – People saw something and said something, but nothing was done.

          32. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            reality:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc577871067efd8decaa78fd8e2db2e120f83312d357151ae843e5ea4ec92f95.png

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/02/red-flag-warnings-maine-killings-prevent/

            https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/us/maine-shooting-gunman.html

          33. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f80c3e8ca928fdf80083a08f0e525c84f6b0bf932f5c41dd2aaf2ed815f9846.png

          34. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I’m already aware.

            Maine doesn’t have a red flag law. Virginia does.

            What was actually needed in Maine was to have him involuntarily committed. I’m not familiar with Maine’s laws on that, but that’s what needed to happen.

          35. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m not convinced that Virginia’s law is any more effective. Is it? Do we have data that shows it?

          36. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Man+Outrage+Gun=MASS CASUALTIES.

          37. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Or we could look right at their faces, the faces of young, white, InCel men (IOW, profiling using data on criminal behavior) and lock them up at the first sign of delusion/antisocial behavior.

          38. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            No need to resort to unconstitutional profiling. What we could do is enforce existing gun laws.

            Christopher Jones (UVA Shooter) gun crime history:

            February 2021 – Arrested in possession of a stolen gun. Police also report finding Jones driving with a “burnt marijuana” smell coming from the car.

            June 2021 – Convicted of “illegal possession of a concealed firearm.”

            July 2021 – Jones attempted to buy a rifle and was rejected for failing a background check one month after he was found guilty of illegal possession of a concealed weapon

            2022 – Jones successfully purchased guns immediately after his 12-month suspended jail sentence ended for that concealed weapons charge.

            November 13, 2022 – Jones commits a mass shooting at the University of Virginia.

          39. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Could this guy have purchased a gun as a private purchase, not through a dealer – in Va?

          40. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Nope. Not legally.

            18.2-308.2:5. Criminal history record information check required to sell firearm; penalty.
            A. No person shall sell a firearm for money, goods, services or anything else of value unless he has obtained verification from a licensed dealer in firearms that information on the prospective purchaser has been submitted for a criminal history record information check as set out in § 18.2-308.2:2 and that a determination has been received from the Department of State Police that the prospective purchaser is not prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm or such sale is specifically exempted by state or federal law.

          41. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            how is it enforced?

          42. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            That’s the problem with all universal background check systems. It’s typically only brought to light after a crime has been committed.

          43. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            how would you fix it? seems like if it’s not enforceable, and people not held accountable, it’s not really a real law.

          44. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “seems like if it’s not enforceable, and people not held accountable, it’s not really a real law.”

            Wow, a welcome spark of reality! That’s what conservatives told you before the law was passed.

            You talk about doing the same thing over and over, then wondering why nothing changes? That’s what gun control advocates do. They tell you that everything will be wonderful if they are elected and pass strict gun laws. After they pass those laws, they say more gun laws are needed to fix the problem. On and on it goes.

            Before the law for private gun sale law was passed, conscientious gun owners were very careful about who they sold guns to. Criminals and people in high crime areas were not.

            Now, with the law in place, conscientious gun owners obey the new law. Criminals and people in high crime areas do not. Most people, as you have demonstrated yourself, are ignorant of this law, just as they are ignorant of other gun laws.

            The object is not to have laws on the books that can not be enforced, nor is it to put huge numbers of ignorant people in jail. If you want to change the dynamic, you should start with educating people about existing gun laws and the penalties for breaking them. But that’s not what we do.

          45. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so how do you have a law that actually works? Seems like if Conservatives know what won’t
            work they probably know what does work and would support it?

          46. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Profiling as a whole isn’t, in fact, unconstitutional. Profiling without a factual basis for suspicion is. The UVa shooter has all the same hallmarks of most other mass killers: MAN, age 20-40, single, history of domestic violence esp. toward women and/or mental disturbance. Take the plank out of your own eye. Young, single MEN are a national scourge when armed.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Please define “weapons of war.”

          https://www.amazon.com/1220-Straight-Fighting-Utility-Leather/dp/B000BSWE9Q#:~:text=The%20traditional%20Ka%2DBar%20marked%20for%20Army%20personnel%20featuring%20a,Flat%20grind%20for%20extreme%20sharpness.

    2. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      PS There is NO “assault” weapon. Paying people a living wage only sends prices up. Do you not look at NY and Cali to see why folks are leaving? I see the amount of stupid in your post, since you are going to do ad hominem attacks, lets start calling it out. The absolutely incredible amount of cluelessness is keeping laws in that have screwed up states and keep screwing up other stats, with constant having to waste taxpayer $$$ in the courts to get them booted in ridiculous. That is called people that are too stupid and clueless and should not have power. The Founding Fathers wanted an educated populace, and when people are too brain damaged to think, they should be barred from office and voting. That alone would save the country from the disaster we are in and heading in.

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        I have lived in/outside LA and Chicago. When did you last visit either?

Leave a Reply

Read More