VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE

The Virginia legislatures "Militia, Police and Public SAfety Committee" voted
to keep the loophole that allows the mentally ill to purchase guns without a background check.

Thus , clearing the way for another Va TEch trgedy.

Im a gun owner and this, like the recent legislative vote in PA
to "not require people to report lost or stolen guns" makes me quite angry
at how the gun lobby has bought the legislative votes necessary
to keep criminals and the mentally ill as part of the gun owning public.

I guess the only answer is for everybody to be armed.

BAsed on how powerful these various lobbies are,

There seems to be no way to have an effective gun control policy in this country

without disarming everyone.

Those of us who keep guns for hunting (and protection), and who arent "gun nuts" like a few of the militia types, have a stake in making sure that our representatives do represent us. If Id live in Va, id be finding out which of the Legislative Committee members were on the take from the gund manufacturers and /or the NRA (who are nothing more than puppets of the gun manufacturers)

Quote:
Thus , clearing the way for another Va TEch trgedy.

The way was clear ALREADY.
Especially with the students having been intimidated
by the Administration into risking their lives by being casually unarmed.

Y did u think it was not " clear " ?

Om SIg

Quote:

Quote:
Thus , clearing the way for another Va TEch trgedy.

The way was clear ALREADY.
Especially with the students having been intimidated
by the Administration into risking their lives by being casually unarmed.

Y did u think it was not " clear " ?

Quote:

There is an expectation that any University is an environment that is safe.

How much good did that EXPECTATION DO them ?
Tell me that ??

Quote:

VT had a security staff thats a "rent a cop" mentality compared to other Universities.
Having everyone casually armed is IMHO a stupid solution and , instead of one Cho,
we could have a thousand who could take direct deadly action against a percieved wrong.

If your theory had any merit,
then during the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s
BEFORE any gun control laws were enacted
there 'd have been many instances of 1000 Chos
going on the rampage, as per your fantasy.
That never happened.

I certainly went to school armed,
and I never shot the place up.
I never even used foul language.

Around the First World War, the US Director of Civilian Marksmanship
went about the mission of encouraging many gunnery teams in schools thru out America.
War surplus guns were sold very inexpensively; ( I bought some of them ).
The gunnery teams never shot the place up.

The ROTC never shot the place up,
nor did we use our swords to slash the place up.

People like u abetted Cho
by intimidating the victims from arming themselves in their own defense.
Your ilk are complicit in murder; your ilk helped Cho.

Quote:

Accuse me of having no confidence in our kids and I say DUHHHH, what dont you understand.
WE have kids who have a bad college experience or are flunking a subject and they snap .
No, you are dead wrong in your pitch re Carrying weapons.

From before the USA existed,
EVERYONE had and HAS a natural right and an absolute moral right
to be armed in his own defense and government has NO authority
to interfere with that.

Quote:

BUT to fail to take one simple step toward sanity and then try to justify
this act of public betrayal, I would expect nothing less from a gun puppet.

I am acutely aware that government was explicitly DEPRIVED of jurisdiction
to control or to influence the citizens' possession of guns,
and I REFUSE to ignore my rights,
as u wish me to do.

You make my point re: the "in the pocket of the gun Mfrs".

I look at my gun ownership as a responsibility to keep the priviledge clean .

HOW do you incarcerate the mentally ill and the criminals --
before the act? And you are a personal injury attorney?
Your logic is about as compelling as flat earth.

CAN 'T U READ ??
I have REPEATEDLY said to incarcerate those with histories of recidivistic criminal violence.
I have posted that over and over and over again.

It is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT,
the same as the right to have AN OPINION or to read a newspaper or to speak freely,
not a mere privilige.

OM sig David, in full font display mode says

Quote:

CAN 'T U READ ??
I have REPEATEDLY said to incarcerate those with histories of recidivistic criminal violence.
I have posted that over and over and over again.

Quote:

You then are a recidivist poster on this eh?
You are mad you know, I worry about that attitude being even considered half seriously.

I have believed that of people like u
who have tried to make crime easier
and to kill more innocent victims
by rendering them helpless
to defend themselves from man or beast.
You are insane, u know.

Quote:

You left out the , mentally affected people in this contribution.

No; not by accident.
My filosofy is to get rid of violently recidivistic criminals,
WITHOUT considering what is going on between their ears.
Judge them by their CONDUCT, not by their beliefs.

If some PEACEFUL, harmless screwball believes that he is re-incarnated Napoleon,
or that the moon is made of green cheese, but attacks no one,
then: leave him the hell alone.
He has an = right to defend himself from robbery or homicide as u do.

ISOLATE violent predators from the decent people if thay have proven to be
intolerably dangerous, by what thay have DONE,
in violation of criminal law ( e.g., homicides, robberies, burglaries, rapes etc. )
This isolation can be either by long or permanent imprisonment here,
or by BANISHMENT from this continent, with sneaking back prohibited on pain of death,
and concurrent jd vested in both federal n state governments.
The number of violently recidivistic crimes that 'd precipitate banishment
can be open to consensus and negotiation in legislatures.

The KEY CONCEPT here is that PROHIBITIONS are FUTILE,
but bad MEN can successfully be removed, thereby rendering the decent people SAFER.

Quote:

SO are you now saying that after someone commits say 3 B&E's
and has served their increasingly longer sentences ,
we should then reincarcerate them for good measure?

Is that what you are proposing?

The legislatures can consider WAIVING retributive punishment,
in favor of just taking out the trash,
BANISHING them from this continent and just being RID of them.
These offenders have effectively declared war upon the decent people
by violent depredations upon them.


At some point: enuf is enuf.

Quote:

It is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT,
the same as the right to have AN OPINION or to read a newspaper or to speak freely,
not a mere privilige.

Quote:

It is both. A priviledge is a right guaranteed to all persons by Constitutional governments.
SO, I see that the respinsibility issue is where you and I depart mightily .

As a condition of government's existence,
government was deprived of jurisdiction to control guns.
THAT is not among its options in crime control,
the same as it cannot force criminals to become pacifistic Quakers,
Amish, nor Mormons ( thay don 't have much crime ).

Quote:

I think that people can lose priviledges (and in the matter of gun ownership)

I feel that the responsibility bar cant be set so that
the mentally defective and the criminals cant own guns .

Your feelings, your emotions, cannot change the Constitution.
There is no responsibility in this category
any more than there is a responsibilty in one 's choice of favorite color.
This is so,
BECAUSE, come hell or high water, government has NO JURISDICTION to control guns.

Government has no jurisdiction to control guns,
altho it has plenty of jd to control criminals who have used them predatorily.

Government CANNOT ACQUIRE this jurisdiction without an amendment
to the Constitution nullifying the Bill of Rights.
The criminal act of any person CANNOT grant new jurisdiction
to government, undermining the Bill of Rights,
because no one person ( no criminal ) can tamper with the Bill of Rights,
to nullify it.
A person cannot lose priviliges that result in overthowing the Constitution.

Quote:

As we install RFIDs into our persons who ,
by their conditions or past activities, show them as a risk in the gun department,
we can track the recidivists and the CHOs without jailing them.

I see possible constitutional infirmities
with thrusting low jack on criminals against their will.

I am even skeptical that it is constitutional to make ex-con
sexual criminals march thru their neighborhoods
telling everyone that thay r perverts
( especially for anyone who was falsely convicted ).

Quote:

We can apply technology to keep guns out of their hands.

The hell we can.

Criminals have histories of even making their own guns IN PRISON.
Guards have heard loud noises and found them bleeding
from accidentally shooting themselves, in many prisons.

In one prison, thay even made a fully operational submachinegun
in the prison workshop, one part at a time, with the guards around,
assembled in private.

Assuming that an ex-con has your low jack subcutaneously installed in him,
how 'd u know when he enters a hardware store to get his gunsmith supplies ?

Does your low jack have a hardware store alarm ??

Quote:

Would you support that , if it were technologically possible?

NO.
There r penalties that can be legally & constitutionally inflicted
upon convicted criminals, even death,
but there are other things that cannot constitutionally be done to him;
( e.g., coerce religion, break him on a rack, make him become a Democrat,
make him get married against his will and other things ).
Government cannot constitutionally forbid any one from getting guns,
but it CAN isolate or kill the man, if he has been convicted of a capital crime.
For instance, government cannot constitutionally make an ex-con play Russian Roulette.

Quote:

Your solution seems to only surround incarceration as a solution.
How long does each ones jail term last, forever?

I have suggested BANISHMENT many times.
Its cheaper.
We already have 3 strikes u r out
in some jd s; its not that far of a leap.

Depending upon the crimes and the danger
that he has proven himself to be,
forever can be OK.

Quote:

When youve thought out a proposed program to make incarceration work, lemme know,
I wont be openly hostile, but I will be somewhat demanding of more detail.

I don t have much to add
to what is set forth hereinabove.

I don 't expect any changes to actually happen.

Quote:

Part of a solution involves legislatures with the determination to buck
the hands that feed them and show more balls for the public good.

So NOW u have declared war on democracy
and u want governments to take over the country ??
According to u,
politicians shud rule by betrayal of their promises to voters,
and thay r rong if thay DON 'T ??

Quote:

What was done by the legislatures of both Va and earlier Pa attains the zenith of cowardice.

That was the cowardice of a man
who refuses to rob a bank or
refuses to rape,
and refuses to USURP POWER.

The legislatures were too cowardly
to overthrow the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution,
the Supreme Law of the Land
KUDOS to the Legislatures: supporters of truth, justice and the American Way

Quote:

In Pa Ive been acting through a public PURG that will be calling to account legislators who, when up for reelection will have their voting records refreshed for the voters. We were successful at pitching out over 25% of the legislature last year for unified malfeasance involving a vote togrant themselves unverified expense accounts. I believe that NRA can be put in its place to be what it originally was, not as its become, some cynical self absorbed "power broker" for gun makers.

As I remember,
in 1977, the CEO of the NRA, General Maxwell Rich, tried to DO that.
At the annual meeting, the membership revolted,
and threw him and his filosofy out of the NRA. ( HOORAY !!!!! )

As a supporter of l'aissez faire free enterprize,
I support the gun manufacturers, but what is MORE IMPORTANT,
I SUPPORT PRESERVATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
against liberal and politically correct subversion.

SOMEONE had to fight the GOOD FIGHT,
defend ing the Bill of Rights against liberals, or it wud have been doomed.
If u r against freedom, then go to NOrth KOrea; thay agree with u,
but u r not going to throw MY constitutional rights in the garbage
if I, or the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or other freedom fighters can help it.




David

CAN 'T U READ ??
I have REPEATEDLY said to incarcerate those with histories of recidivistic criminal violence.
I have posted that over and over and over again

Om sig, getting a bit emotional

Quote:

CAN 'T U READ ??
I have REPEATEDLY said to incarcerate those with histories of recidivistic criminal violence.
I have posted that over and over and over again

I have a hunch that u did not read
my last post, answering your questions n your comments. Did u read it ?

Quote:

I know that youve said to do it. You failed to instruct us HOW.

My suggestions are very close to the 3 strikes and u r out paradigm.
If a person has shown himself to be incorrigible
by violently recidivating after incarceration,
and if a court, after trial by jury ( or bench trial, at defendant 's option )
finds him to be an intolerable danger to the decent people
because of a history of multiple violent crimes,
then he shud be BANISHED from this continent,
or incarcerated here for many decades; maybe permanently.
Either way,
for both retributive justice ( i.e., avenging the victim )
and for public safety he shud be ISOLATED from contact with the decent citizenry.

If he is BANISHED, then I do not suggest that he be confined,
but his sneaking back here shud be barred on pain of death.
I think that will probably keep him away.

Quote:

ALso, in your first post, you included "those with mental problems".

No, Farmer, the quotation that u have attributed to me is false.
I did NOT say that, nor did I even think it.
This is cut n pasted from my last post ( colored in blue ),
in which I answered your question:

" My filosofy is to get rid of violently recidivistic criminals,
WITHOUT considering what is going on between their ears.
Judge them by their CONDUCT, not by their beliefs.

If some PEACEFUL, harmless screwball believes that he is re-incarnated Napoleon,
or that the moon is made of green cheese, but attacks no one,
then: leave him the hell alone.
He has an = right to defend himself from robbery or homicide as u do. "

Quote:

How about Jews and gypsies also.?

Treat them the same as everyone else.

Quote:

You do leave out major chunks of instructions by
which we may act on your suggestions. :wink:

Doesnt your use of extremely large type leave you exhausted?

What left me exhausted
was the length of time that I applied to honoring your thread
and the questions n comments of your post, responding thereto,
but it saddens me that u appear not to have taken the time to READ
what I wrote for u,
judging from the fact that u ask about matters that I stated,
as if I had not written them at all.

Quote:

I was wondering whether you couldnt start using
some of your different color choices in your calligraphy.

I know that u r just having fun, at my expense,
but answering your question anyway:
I have been importuned n entreated so plaintively by members of this forum
to refrain from doing it,
that I have reduced the amount of coloration.

I am of the opinion that coloration simplifies understanding.


David

The KEY CONCEPT here is that PROHIBITIONS are FUTILE,
but bad MEN can successfully be removed, thereby rendering the decent people SAFER.

My suggestions are very close to the 3 strikes and u r out paradigm.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My suggestions are very close to the 3 strikes and u r out paradigm.

Quote:

Ar you shur that shudn't be spelled paradime?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot. Sometimes they just slip out.

U r correct.
I have spelled it paradime previously.
I plead guilty to inconsistency in spelling that word.
Sometimes the old way just slips out.

( I have spelled that way a lot longer than I have spelled foneticly. )