The Virginia legislature passed a flurry of bills stripping away limitations on gun possession in the state. After intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association and over $1 million in NRA campaign contributions, the lawmakers passed 20 gun bills expanding possession and ownership rights in the state.
The bills include lifting the ban on buying more than one gun a month, allowing guns to be taken into bars and emergency shelters and allowing more people to get concealed handgun permits.
The timing of the passage of the laws is interesting with the arguments in the McDonald case only a couple weeks away. That case, to be argued during the first week of March, will determine whether the right of gun ownership, recognized in 2008, will be applied to the states as a fundamental right. That would mean that some restrictive laws could be found unconstitutional, including outright bans on handguns or concealed weapons.
For the story, click here.
Byron 1, February 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm
[snip]
Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.
———————————————
Really? You really need someone to answer that question? (Because territorial expansion into North America wasn’t a national goal. Because it’s a very spread out target and it would be exceptionally difficult to hold any ground. Because the targets with good military value were well defended by regular military installations. Because the Japanese didn’t hold enough Pacific islands to support the supply chain that would be needed to supply troops on the continental US. And on and on…) Remember, the Japanese military believed that the entire Pacific Northwest was a tinderbox waiting to explode into flames, so they launched balloons with flares to drift over the Pacific and set all of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, BC and Alberta ablaze! It turns out that Imperial Japan was wrong about many things about the US.
Hey – at least we’re breaking down stereotypes. There goes my assumption that folks who promote wide spread gun possession in the US typically know a bit about the military! Poof!
We can argue history all we want. The simple fact is that these changes to Virginia law will result in more deaths and maimings in DC and NYC (not to mention VA itself).
(Sorry to contribute to the noise, but being Virginia, I can’t help it: Gun promoters point to the Virginia Tech shootings and say, “If more people had guns, this wouldn’t have been as bad!” To that, I say – imagine being a police officer responding to the situation: Somewhere in this big classroom building is one or more college aged male(s) who is/are trying to kill students and faculty. Also loose in the building are armed students and faculty, engaging in a gun battle with the shooter(s) – or possibly engaging in a gun battle with each other because they don’t know who’s a shooter, and who’s a vigilante. OK! Run into the building and have fun!)
The Swiss come to mind, they seem to have pretty fair gun laws but make males over 18 do mandatory military service.
Bob Esq:
Yamamoto was a Harvard man. In relation to the old college try.
I actually have seen this quote in a couple of locations and it sounds like something a Japanese soldier would have said. The “behind every blade of grass” is what got me, if it had been “behind every tree” I would not have believed it. Maybe too many Toshiro Mifune movies.
Bob,
Exactly my point.
Which is why the knee jerk reactions by most in this thread is especially ridiculous (as you’ve been having great fun pointing out).
The only issue in McDonald can a city restrict private citizens from having handguns in the home? This seem pretty basic to me.
Byron: “it doesn’t say he didn’t say it.”
But why cite a quote that can’t be verified?
Byron: “Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.”
Easier escape route along the shore of Russia? I don’t know; the Pacific Ocean between Japan and California is pretty f’n wide. Would Japan had been more reasonable in your eyes if they took that one way ticket to the Naval Yards on the West Coast just to give it that old college try?
Gyges: “How about a rational middle ground between “I need access to my gun at all times or else Big Brother will win” and “No guns ever?”
Seems to me that’s already in place with the current gun laws; specifically those regarding handguns.
Bob Esq:
it doesn’t say he didn’t say it.
“Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.”
Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.
How about a rational middle ground between “I need access to my gun at all times or else Big Brother will win” and “No guns ever?”
Also, since I feel they need to be said “Correlation does not equal causation,” “the report about defensive gun use you’re getting your numbers from is seriously flawed,” and “my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins,” apply them where it seems appropriate.
Oh this is fun.
rcampbell,
Given your implicit desire, statistically speaking, to see more people dead, it’s a wonder why you don’t pick up a gun and take matters into your own hand.
rcampbell: “How about dealing with THE issue. How about telling us why and how you justify the deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes, while waiting for your paranoid fantasy to occur.”
First, that wasn’t ‘the’ issue, it was many issues; none of which bearing much relevance to each other in a categorical sense. Second, could you at least form a syllogism explaining why your opponents must account for “deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes” in arguing against the resolution that all guns must be banned.
rcampbell: “BTW, in your sci-fi world where the tyranical US government comes after you, logic says not every one would oppose such a move and your neighbors would be armed and gunning for you as well.”
So you favor arming only those who agree with you? How sporting.
rcampbell: “We were recently discussing medical marijuana on this blog. Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot.”
REQUIRED TO SMOKE POT? So, given the fact that marijuana smoke is multiple times more likely to cause cancer than cigarette smoke, it appears you are REQUIRING the populace to increase their chances of dying by
Chronic Lower Resperitory Disease
More than: 122,009 deaths, 5.1%
Overweight and Obesity (the munchies)
More than: 111,909 – 365,000 deaths or 4.6 – 15.2% of the total deaths.
“They’d have to change the selection of stocks in the DJIA to include Lay’s and Hostess and Taco Bell, but everyone would be mellow with that.”
Surely.
Traffic collisions (driving while stoned??)
More than: 43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.
Great plan!
Byron,
http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
Byron–
After listening to the blather of teabaggers, birthers, deathers, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, congressmen and women who were against the stimulus package before they began touting the funds they brought to their states because of it–it seems to me that plenty of our citizens and politicians are likely to be stoned out of their minds or unable to comprehend reality. Maybe they’ve repeated their own lies so often that they’ve begun believing them to be true.
I also think most of our legislators are stoned on money received from lobbyists and are unable to comprehend the reality of what’s happening to this country and to the lives of millions of Americans. Nothing’s getting done to help us regular folks. Maybe all you people with guns should start an armed siege of Capitol Hill and force our legislators into working for THE PEOPLE and not the corporations! Just a thought.
rcampbell said “How about dealing with THE issue.”????
Let’s deal with the issue. Do we, as U.S. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms? Hmmm?
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Or are you one of those who believes that only those who are members of a regulated malitia have the right to keep and bear arms? What about being necessary to the security of a free state?If so, do you think schools should only exist for the benefit of good government? What would the curriculum in those schools be?
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Northwest Ordinance 1787
As to your justification for death, there is none. Are you going to justify the deaths of all those who died of a heart attack from being obese? Or are you going to ban the foods and force people to exercise.
BTW, your idea of “requiring” people to smoke pot says a lot about your ideals.
Byron,
Reality is what you make of it. Sober or Stoned (toasted). Toasted is a much nicer description of the word. As people who get drunk are considered stoned. Never have understood that.
Say you have just smoked weed. Technically you are not stoned until it hits you. You could be toasted and not stoned. Its one of those in my sober unstoned or toasted mind colloquial equivalents.
VLF2112-
“Guess I’ll just move to Virginia, or Arizona, or maybe even Texas, for the purpose of bringing my guns into a bar so I could get to those secret, government agents who are killing millions of citizens before they get me.”
Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to go to one of those states to carry in a bar. It’s been the norm in many states for years and has not caused any measurable problems.
rcampbell-
“The professor in Alabama was a law-abiding citizen. Three people dead, four lives ruined.”
She passed the background checks. What would you suggest would have stopped this event from occurring? Perhaps if that university didn’t allow guns on campus– oh wait, they already had that policy in place. Short of an all out ban and confiscation (or competent law enforcement in her hometown), what would have prevented this tragedy?
“A)While waiting to defend one’s self against the totalitarian US government, people are killing one another with those guns. That high-sounding self defense theory doesn’t bring back to life most gun victims.”
Those guns are saving lives as well. Even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses far outstrip the number of deaths by gun.
“B) What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?”
Look, I don’t think it’s likely that I’ll ever have to fight my government, but this is one of the dumbest and most tired arguments. The idea behind an armed populace resisting their government is not to engage in pitched battles where people with deer rifles charge tanks. The idea is insurgency. If two madmen in a car with a single rifle can keep an entire region paralyzed in fear, imagine what 10,000, 100,000, or more dedicated and pissed off citizens could do.
rcampbell:
“Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot.”
LOL.
But then that is where the government wants us, stoned out of our minds, unable to comprehend reality and defenseless. In the mind of big government types the perfect citizen er subject.
Duh and MacK
How about dealing with THE issue. How about telling us why and how you justify the deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes, while waiting for your paranoid fantasy to occur.
BTW, in your sci-fi world where the tyranical US government comes after you, logic says not every one would oppose such a move and your neighbors would be armed and gunning for you as well.
We were recently discussing medical marijuana on this blog. Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot. They’d have to change the selection of stocks in the DJIA to include Lay’s and Hostess and Taco Bell, but everyone would be mellow with that.
Admiral Yamamoto decided against the invasion of America precisely because of a well armed citizenry. “A gun behind every blade of grass”.
rcampbell:
“The professor in Alabama was a law-abiding citizen. Three people dead, four lives ruined. And the NRA can be proud. She attended gun safety classes, practiced gun safety, practiced shooting at a range. Three people dead, four lives ruined.”
And if there was a pile up on I-95 due to a sleep-deprived driver; killing 3 people, ruining four lives. Shall we ban the automobile?
rcampbell: “Yeah, that’s what we need—-more guns. Guns for every kind of lunatic. We need guns in bars to speed up service and settle baseball trivia questions.”
Ad absurdum or a simply a mindless rant rivaling those of the tea-baggers?
rcampbell: “An arguement based on the actions of totalitarian governments against their own people isn’t much of a defense for two reasons:”
Lemme guess, you won’t be quoting Blackstone or Jefferson on this one; will you?
rcampbell: A)While waiting to defend one’s self against the totalitarian US government, people are killing one another with those guns. That high-sounding self defense theory doesn’t bring back to life most gun victims. Not those from domestic/relationship violence or road rage or children playing with guns around the house (weak defense part II: “…the parents should have…” or “…I keep my guns….” NEWS FLASH–those children are still dead) or vigilantism.”
Newsflash: while waiting for their next deep fried snickers bar, 39% of all deaths in the U.S. are caused by Major Cardiovasular Diseases. What’s the penalty for eating a deep fried snickers bar?
And just to double check to see if we have our priorities in order:
Preventable causes of death:
Smoking tobacco
435,000 deaths or 18.1% of the total deaths.
Overweight and Obesity
111,909 – 365,000 deaths or 4.6 – 15.2% of the total deaths.
Alcohol
85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths.
Infectious diseases
75,000 deaths or 3.1% of the total deaths.
Toxins
55,000 deaths or 2.3% of the total deaths.
Traffic collisions
43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.
Firearms deaths
29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total.
(pay close attention rcampbell…)
(Suicide: 16,586; Homicide: 10,801; Accidents: 776; Legal intervention: 270; Unknown: 230)
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 17,423 homicides and accidental deaths by firearms, making for a net percentage of 0.6 percent of deaths
Still less than…
Sexually transmitted infections
20,000 deaths or 0.8% of the total.
Drug abuse
17,000 deaths or 0.7% of the total deaths.
rcampbell: “B) What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?”
What makes you think that the aforesaid ‘scenario’ is the only reason the people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms?