Duncan Suzuki

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

McAuliffe and Gun Control

By JAMES PEELE 

Special to The SWT

For the record let me first state that I own multiple weapons including semi automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Each of these weapons was purchased through a licensed federal firearms dealer or family heirlooms passed down from grandfather to father to son. I also have a concealed carry permit (CCP), am a member of the NRA, support safe and legal use of these weapons for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, and the very reason that our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, to protect us from a tyrannical government. If one finds the need to argue this last point, please read the Federalist Papers No. 28 and 29 by Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 46 by James Madison. It is clear from their writing that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right controlled by the government.

After Virginia’s gubernatorial election, many may question where the new governor stands on hot button issues. Gun control is not one of those issues as Governor-Elect McAuliffe has stated his position and confirmed it many times. After the November results were in, McAuliffe wasted no time with his anti-gun agenda by appointing Lori Haas to his transition team. Ms. Haas is the Virginia Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), an extremist group seeking to enact harsh and restrictive gun laws. While I have sympathy for Lori Hass as she lost her daughter in the Virginia Tech shootings, she is misguided in thinking that gun control will eliminate these tragic events. Mental health was the issue at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and most, if not all, of these mass shootings. Mental illness is related to the majority of these indiscriminate attacks, not lack of gun control. Investigation following the tragic events often uncovers witnesses to years of unstable behavior, both teachers and fellow students, and evidence that the individual needed mental health intervention to protect society and that often, the parents were aware of that need.

In September 2013, prior to the election, McAuliffe’s website promoted Colorado style gun control for Virginia. If you are not following events in Colorado, two Democrat Colorado State Senators who promoted the bill and used bullying tactics to get the bill to the floor were recalled and replaced by Republicans who actually believe in the Second Amendment. McAuliffe’s proposal would bring back the one gun a month limitation, limits on magazine capacity, and universal background checks. Many will ask the question “What is wrong with those, they seem harmless enough.” Personal property, guns included, can be sold or transferred to friends or family members without government intervention and this provision would allow government intervention and is the first baby step to eliminating every subsequent sale, even the transfer to a family member. Another naive question is why does one need so many bullets in a magazine? The correct answer to that question is always just one more than the criminal.

The FBI reports that less than 4 percent of all sales at gun shows are through private citizens that are not required to do background checks. Many activists, including the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg and his group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), tout that figure at 40 percent. This claim is factually untrue and been debunked many times, even at the liberal internet site Factcheck.org. The survey that produced that figure was conducted in 1994; (prior to the law, Brady Act, requiring background checks to have any effect on the outcome) and consisted of surveying 2,568 households about the origin of any guns in the household. The revealing fact about this survey is that only 251 households responded. There were no follow up questions on the survey about family transfers, just whether the gun purchase was through a licensed dealer or other means. Duke University Professor, researcher, and co-author stated when asked about the reliability of Bloomberg and MAIG statements, “The answer is I have no idea. This survey was done almost 20 years ago … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we’re not really clear on it … We would say it’s a very old number.”

In an article in the Washington Times, Emily Miller reports even more disturbing news (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/23/terry-mcauliffe-election-gun-control-means-beretta/). After the McAuliffe win, Beretta Arms eliminated Virginia from the list of six remaining states where they would relocate their manufacturing facility. Beretta Arms is currently in Maryland but leaving the state after Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley signed radical gun control into law. The article cites many facts, one of which stands out. McAuliffe accepted one million dollars in ad support from Bloomberg and MAIG. “The anti-gun ads that McAuliffe ran in northern Virginia were particularly offensive,” Jeff Reh, general counsel of Beretta USA, told Emily Miller in an interview. “And the fact that he could gain a voting advantage by doing so caused us additional concern.” 

The argument that escapes this writer is a simple one. Gun control laws target those who obey the law. Limiting magazine size, types of guns available, purchase limits, and expended background checks only applies to those who obey the laws. Criminals, by their very nature, do not obey these laws and anyone who contemplates assaulting or murdering someone is certainly not going to comply with any gun control law. These mentally ill perpetrators target gun free zones, as they know in their demented capacity that they will not meet armed resistance. An armed school resource officer stopped a December attack in Arapahoe High School just 80 seconds into the attack when she cornered the shooter who then took his own life. How many lives saved by the officer’s action? Is it ironic that this occurred in Colorado, the state that just passed draconian gun control laws or a clear demonstration that gun control laws do not stop attacks by deranged individuals who have mental issues? McAuliffe wants to pass these laws in Virginia, beware and fight against this usurpation of our Second Amendment protections. When a gun-wielding intruder threatens your life and seconds may determine the outcome, the police are only minutes away.

 

 

 

18 Responses to McAuliffe and Gun Control

  1. Martina Leinz

    January 17, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Get your facts straight Mr. Peele. First of all, McAuliffe is not “anti-gun” in fact he is a gun owner himself. He is simply like the overwhelming majority of Americans who understand that there is nothing inconsistent with supporting Second Amendment rights and demanding reasonable protections to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Second, Ms. Haas did not lose her daughter at Virgina Tech. Her daughter was injured but is very much alive. The rest of your erroneous arguments are not even worth commenting on.

    • samadams1776

      January 19, 2014 at 7:37 am

      You’re right, he is not “anti-gun,” not for himself or government. “Guns for thee, but not for thee.”

      Being a gun-owner is no guarantor of Second Amendment (2A) purity. The Bill of Rights (BOR), including the Second Amendment does not grant rights; it limits government intrusion over the people’s rights and powers. This fact is clear from the preamble to the BOR.

      In the case of the 2A, this prohibition is complete. The fact that the judiciary is complicit in violating these restriction upon our natural rights does not justify it.

      The purpose of protecting the RKBA has nothing to do with hunting or sport; its about tyranny. This is why there can be no acceptable limitation on the types of arms that may be borne. Whatsoever a foot-soldier might carry, so must it be available to the civilian.

      You will NEVER stop criminals nor crazies. There are mitigations you can do; however.

      1. Kill violent criminals (after appropriate due process)
      2. Deny access to those adjudicated (due process again) a danger to themselves or others. Mere mental health issues is not sufficient.

      Because of the stringent requirements of adjudication–some will slip through the system and deaths will result–this is a consequence of living in a free society.

      If this is unacceptable, do not make us less free—leave to a country that is less free than ours, instead.

      SamAdams1776 III – Oathkeeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentitCorruptissima re publica plurimae leges
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  2. Gene Ralno

    January 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Reasonable to thee is oppression to me. I didn’t know much of this but I reached a conclusion about McAuliffe’s character long ago. I could go on but arguing with liberals just isn’t worth the trouble anymore. The plain and clear fact is proven by masses of data. Gun laws have an infinitesimal impact on crime rates of all kinds, including murder. If the libs are serious about reducing crime, particularly murder, they must join with the sane segment of America and focus on controlling felons and nuts, neither of whom are permitted to own guns. Besides, the crime rate has been plummeting for 20 years and about 25 percent of the murders in this country occur in the three cities with the most draconian gun control laws.

  3. Justsumstuff

    January 18, 2014 at 10:16 am

    McAuliffe is anti- gun. NRA gives him an “F” rating. You can look up numerous articles if why.
    The meeting in Charlottesville lead by Hass was about keeping guns away from people. Whether they are law abidingor not does not have anything to do with it.

    McAuliffe bought a gun for media show, nothing more. He supports restrictions on law abiding citizens.

    Do not include me in your erroneous assessment that most people do not oppose gun registration and restrictions.

    Several localities are talking confiscation. That includes no search warrant. You want them searching your house to make sure you don’t own any. Guilty until proven innocent includes you.

    • Will

      January 20, 2014 at 11:31 am

      You mean that the NRA is an unbiased organization that should be trusted as fair to all? Surely you jest!

  4. Dave Caldwell

    January 18, 2014 at 10:40 am

    The first two posts speak for themselves, logic vs emotion, the constitution was good in the 18th century… we have possibly progressed since then… firearms for self protection is rolling the dice, better to avoid those situations as we drive defensively rather than armouring our vehicles so that we can live, errr drive, any way we wish…

  5. Colin Goddard

    January 18, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Mr. Peele,

    I too support the 2nd Amendment for many of the same reasons stated in your opening paragraph. However, I also agree with Ms. Leinz that “there is nothing inconsistent with supporting Second Amendment rights and demanding reasonable protections to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals”.

    You wrote: “Expended background checks only applies to those who obey the laws” – actually they apply to anyone attempting to purchase a gun. Since Colorado expanded background checks to all gun purchases 7 months ago – 72 convicted criminals and those with domestic violence restraining orders (note, who wouldn’t have been blocked otherwise) have been stopped from acquiring a gun: http://kdvr.com/2013/12/11/dems-background-checks-stopped-72-gun-sales-to-convicted-criminals/

    As Mr. Ralno then commented, we “must join with the sane segment of America and focus on controlling felons and nuts”. I agree – that’s why I advocate for requiring a background check on every gun sale – so that “felons and nuts” get screened out during the purchasing process.

    Mr. Peele, with and average of 30+ gun homicides and 50+ gun suicides occurring every single day in our country, isn’t the responsible thing to do as a law-abiding American citizen is know that any potential buyer of your gun can legally own it?

  6. Nicholas

    January 18, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Mr. Peele is dishonest in his representation of the MAIG claim that 40% of gun sales take place without a background check, limiting the scope of his 4% counterclaim to gun shows and ignoring the wealth private ads on Armslist and other websites.

    Additionally, he fails to mention that the reason no updated figures on unsafe sales have emerged is the insertion of language forbidding government funded health research from recommending gun control, a fundamental corruption of the scientific method. One would not approach a cardiologist and say, “Diagnose me, but I forbid you to recommend bypass surgery.”

  7. James B

    January 18, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    The NRA has basically become a domestic terrorist organization. Their opposition to any reasonable gun restrictions is ridiculous and pathetic. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens that ALSO believe in reasonable restrictions, such as (1) require a background check on every gun sale whatsoever and close the gunshow loophole, (2) require gun locks on all guns in homes in which a child under the age of 17 lives, (3) ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds – which was in effect for years but expired recently, (4) make it harder to obtain a concealed weapon permit by requiring the applicant to demonstrate a need for such a permit. These would be a basic first start to a reasonable system.

    • Paul Kersey

      January 20, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      I have to throw the BS flag on you James B. Name calling – “domestic terrorist organization” – is the usual snarky sarcastic response when a liberal has nothing intelligent to say. You lost the debate with your first sentence. Show me the poll, survey or research to substantiate your claim that the “vast majority” of gun owners want: 1) government interference on private sales, 2) government infringement on how weapons are stored in private homes, 3) government arbitrarily deciding how many rounds I “need” for self-defense (will you restrict police officers’ weapons magazines as well?). As for #4 – who are you to determine if I have a need to carry concealed? It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. What part of “…shall not be infringed…” don’t you understand? I don’t think you’ve presented faulty research – I say you presented a big fat lie.

  8. Raconteur Duck

    January 18, 2014 at 11:10 pm

    “First of all, McAuliffe is not “anti-gun” in fact he is a gun owner himself. ”
    He is what is called a FUDD, or more typically, a hypocrite. McAwful has never seen a gun control law he did not like. His record is out there in public and he never told Bloomberg to hold back on the anti-gun ads. Just what do you suppose Bloomberg wants for all that money he sunk into the Virginia election?

  9. bigbird

    January 20, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Politics suck. All you people do is talk around the issue. Just like the miserable federal government we now have. Stop crime? Then be tough on crime. We don’t punish criminals anymore. We throw them in jail, feed them good, give them free health care, a big screen television, and an unemployment check. It’s not the gun, it’s the people! You better have a gun as this society continues to decline daily. One day you may need to protect your family, and one day you may need to protect yourselves from the government. Nobody ever says that, but the top reason for owning a gun other than hunting, is protection from the government. To ignore than single issue to be be blind.

    • Va Girl

      January 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Good post bigbird. The founding father’s understood the need for citizens to protect themselves from not only criminals, but government if an oppressive bunch (similar to what we have in office now) ever took over and tried to wreak havoc on our Constitutional rights as Americans.

      I cannot comment much on McAuliffe’s gun stance since I’ve not researched him, but I’m guessing he’s a lot like the buffoons who passed the new healthcare laws. They are above it having no reason to ever join up. Nor will they ever get taxed if they don’t want to participate. They pass laws they themselves will never have to follow.

  10. Will

    January 20, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Mr. Peele does it again. Another political opinion piece disguised as news. This paper is quickly becoming no better than something to wipe with when out of TP.

    • Interested

      January 24, 2014 at 11:08 am

      I guess in your zeal to attack Mr. Peele and the SWT, you failed to notice that the article is, indeed, an opinion piece and not pretending to be news. I am sure the SWT and Mr. Peele appreciates your reading his articles, so keep on reading I am sure he has more in mind to tick you off.

      • Will

        January 24, 2014 at 11:46 am

        If you’d pay attention, you see that the website doesn’t clearly delineate news from editorial. But, it doesn’t matter, the SWT did publish the opposing viewpoint for you to complain about.

        • Interested

          January 24, 2014 at 6:23 pm

          Maybe your browser is different from mine, but both articles show up under the opinion column. Neither of them show up under the news column. So I am paying attention, maybe the attention deficit is on your side.