Lt. Gov.-elect holds anti-gun forum on Monday in Charlottesville

This from a VCDL Alert (11/28/2013)

Elections have consequences and so it begins. Anti-gun Lt. Governor-Elect Ralph Northam is wasting no time jumping into gun control by hosting a forum this Monday, December 2, at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, titled "From Virginia Tech to the Navy Yard: New Approaches to Keeping Guns from Dangerous People."

The guise of the forum is about mental health issues and gun control. But one of the key things they are going to talk about is taking away gun rights from someone who has a MISDEMEANOR conviction for a violent crime (like getting into a fistfight) or is a "heavy drinker." Who decides where "heavy" begins and "moderate" ends?

This kind of gun control, or course, throws a wide net that will keep getting wider until no one can LEGALLY own guns. Only a fool thinks the antis will ever stop wanting more and more restrictions. They won't stop until there are no legal guns left, leaving the United States a dangerous place with soaring violent crime. Then they will move on to knives, just like they did in England.

As with all other such events, the antis are in total control of this "forum." The panel consists of only antis with no legitimate representation from any of the gun rights groups. That's because when both sides are heard, the antis walk away the losers every time. So they run their meetings with an iron fist, keeping dissension out as much as possible. Stalin would be proud!

Let's take a look at the forum speakers:

* Ralph Northam, anti-gun state Senator and now Lt. Governor-elect

* Richard Bonnie, a UVA law and medicine professor, who is pushing the misdemeanor disarmament idea I mentioned above

* State Senator Donald McEachin, who votes consistently anti-gun and often carries anti-gun bills in the General Assembly

* Josh Horowitz, who has been running his own gun control group for years now

* Lori Haas, another long time Virginia gun control advocate. She's also on Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe's transition team

* TWO members of the Michael Bloomberg sponsored Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Professors Shannon Frattaroli and Beth McGinty

Want to bet New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn't have a hand in this event?

Anyway, the forum is open to the public. I plan on being there with GSL stickers.

The forum is being held from 1:30 PM to 5 PM at:

UVA Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy
Garrett Hall, 235 McCormick Road
Charlottesville, VA

More information here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2013_fall/gun_policy_forum.htm

They just want to go there and stroke each other? Do what the Brown students did ... go there and shout them down; end the anti-gun fest.

Recent Election

Barely three weeks ago, an election took place. Our side lost. When are people going to realize that there are consequences? I read many posts on this site about how Cuccenelli (sic) was slightly too much this or slightly too little that. It always seems as if we know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even in Virginia, a State that has one of the best firearms laws, too many people with the "right" views get caught up in petty squabbles. SEE WHAT HAPPENED??? Learn from it, dammit!!!

fjpro2a said:

Barely three weeks ago, an election took place. Our side lost. When are people going to realize that there are consequences? I read many posts on this site about how Cuccenelli (sic) was slightly too much this or slightly too little that. It always seems as if we know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even in Virginia, a State that has one of the best firearms laws, too many people with the "right" views get caught up in petty squabbles. SEE WHAT HAPPENED??? Learn from it, dammit!!!

Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding We have a winner!

If you want public servants that have a liberty and freedom ethos, then vote only for candidates with a Liberty and freedom ethos.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil. Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of this election is that the Ds and Rs still think they can advocate for the right kind of evil because most still vote the lesser of two evils.

fjpro2a said:

Barely three weeks ago, an election took place. Our side lost. When are people going to realize that there are consequences? I read many posts on this site about how Cuccenelli (sic) was slightly too much this or slightly too little that. It always seems as if we know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even in Virginia, a State that has one of the best firearms laws, too many people with the "right" views get caught up in petty squabbles. SEE WHAT HAPPENED??? Learn from it, dammit!!!

Click to expand...

Sigh......
If anything after the election, the gun community is more off track and fragmented than ever.

peter nap said:

Sigh......
If anything after the election, the gun community is more off track and fragmented than ever.

Click to expand...

Peter,

Yes we are in three camps.

Many believe that our camp is. Largely a Republican camp. Not to say that they are perfectly aligned, but that we as gun owners do well under Republicans.

The second camp says we do best when we have pro gun candidates of whatever stripe.

The third camp says we do best when we have pro gun candidates of whatever stripe that base their pro gun beliefs on a broader liberty and freedom ethos.

I must confess, I want to always be in the third camp, but sometimes I am in the 1st or second camp.

I respond when someone calls non Cooch supporters out, blaming them for the Cooch's loss. We the heathens that dared to vote for Sarvis or just stayed home, do not need to be educated or chastised.

The path back to a strong and united pro gun community is to accept the fact that one does not need to have an R next to their name to be pro gun. Do not bash pro gun people because of their political affiliation. Grow a bigger and more diverse community and we will be the politically powerful community that we want to be.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Thundar said:

Peter,

Yes we are in three camps.

Many believe that our camp is. Largely a Republican camp. Not to say that they are perfectly aligned, but that we as gun owners do well under Republicans.

The second camp says we do best when we have pro gun candidates of whatever stripe.

The third camp says we do best when we have pro gun candidates of whatever stripe that base their pro gun beliefs on a broader liberty and freedom ethos.

I must confess, I want to always be in the third camp, but sometimes I am in the 1st or second camp.

I respond when someone calls non Cooch supporters out, blaming them for the Cooch's loss. We the heathens that dared to vote for Sarvis or just stayed home, do not need to be educated or chastised.

The path back to a strong and united pro gun community is to accept the fact that one does not need to have an R next to their name to be pro gun. Do not bash pro gun people because of their political affiliation. Grow a bigger and more diverse community and we will be the politically powerful community that we want to be.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Click to expand...

It's not the three camps that bother me Thundar. That can be bridged when need be.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-against-cigarette-trafficking-Violent-Crime

Bottom line is the recommendations that come out will to be to raise taxes on tobacco.
The new administration has already said they need more revenue. Sin Taxes are always an easier way than income taxes.

It's already a felony in Va so increased penalties aren't going to help the crime issue which isn't a Va problem anyway.

This is a classic example of the off track and fragmented gun community. We have the anti's coming through the gate and we're discussing sneaking cigarettes into New York...in other words, Nero is fiddling while Rome is burning.......AND

DAVID, DON"T AGREE WITH ANYTHING I SAY ANYMORE!

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

It's not the three camps that bother me Thundar. That can be bridged when need be.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-against-cigarette-trafficking-Violent-Crime

Click to expand...

There have always been silly off topic posts in the forum. I think our inability to focus is based upon our past success. No big bad issues for a while, so many use this forum as a generalized social club. The real question for me is whether the Virginia forum can reconstitute its activist past to fight gun grabbers and anti gun freedom thugs again, or whether the forum has permanently morphed into a silly online debating club.

Thundar said:

There have always been silly off topic posts in the forum. I think our inability to focus is based upon our past success. No big bad issues for a while, so many use this forum as a generalized social club. The real question for me is whether the Virginia forum can reconstitute its activist past to fight gun grabbers and anti gun freedom thugs again, or whether the forum has permanently morphed into a silly online debating club.

Click to expand...

I know Thundar and I've been as bad about the silly posts as anyone in good times but these aren't good times.

Storm clouds are gathering. Bills are already with legislative services for review. Things like the transition team concern me with Haas who will certainly get an appointment but also Chris Peace who is probably one of Va's strongest pro gun legislators....who couldn't get a nod from the PAC.

We aren't going to make any forward progress and it'll only take a couple of Members of the GA to cross party lines to be a disaster.

How the Lobby will respond to anti bills concerns me....

If you notice, ,many of the usual active members here, are either lurking or just stopped coming.

Some of the better posts are coming from members out of the state. Then there are some..........

This is going to be more of a task than the Kaine Administration.

Talking FTF to some of the older members, we agree that the immediate push should go into the specials....None of that's being discussed here or within the parties that I know of. If they are, they're whispering.

The 6th is very appealing to the Libertarians. Nobody has stepped forward yet, but I think one will when the special election is actually called.

Remember the Libertarians can't hold a firehouse primary, they have to get on the ballot via a ballot petition. Said ballot petition cannot start until Tollbooth Bob signs the writ and fixes the date of the special election because the date is required on the petition. If VCDL sends out questionnaires or actually endorses before the Libertarians even have an opportunity to get on the ballot, then the gun-owner schism will only get worse.

Thundar said:

​

Peter,

Yes we are in three camps.

Thundar

Click to expand...

I thought the THREE camps are segregated as follows:

1) Hunting: Those who have firearms for hunting -- and by hunting I mean those who eat what they kill.

2) Sporting: Those who have firearms for any sporting purpose; that could be anything from shooting at paper, to clay thingies, to people (not cool), or animals for wall trophies - not eating, and so on.

3) Self-Defense: Those who have firearms (and CARRY) for the sole purpose of self-preservation in accordance with the prime directive in natural law.

When I see bumper stickers say things like "Sportsmen For Allen" I wonder: "What does that mean?" I ask 'cause I wonder how many self-identified hunters offer their unqualified support of faction #3. How many hunters appear embarrassed to be associated with OC Virginians? I wonder.

Sometimes I'm left to conclude the #3 Faction is more open and accommodating of the first two factions than the other way around. Until this is resolved satisfactorily, these divisions will continue, leaving so-called "pro-gun" politicians to wonder who exactly they are representing.

Repeater said:

I thought the THREE camps are segregated as follows:

1) Hunting: Those who have firearms for hunting -- and by hunting I mean those who eat what they kill.

2) Sporting: Those who have firearms for any sporting purpose; that could be anything from shooting at paper, to clay thingies, to people (not cool), or animals for wall trophies - not eating, and so on.

3) Self-Defense: Those who have firearms (and CARRY) for the sole purpose of self-preservation in accordance with the prime directive in natural law.

When I see bumper stickers say things like "Sportsmen For Allen" I wonder: "What does that mean?" I ask 'cause I wonder how many self-identified hunters offer their unqualified support of faction #3. How many hunters appear embarrassed to be associated with OC Virginians? I wonder.

Sometimes I'm left to conclude the #3 Faction is more open and accommodating of the first two factions than the other way around. Until this is resolved satisfactorily, these divisions will continue, leaving so-called "pro-gun" politicians to wonder who exactly they are representing.

Click to expand...

Many Sportsmen are a problem...like Chippers, they have tunnel vision.
Gradually, they're starting to see category 3 which of course has it's own sub divisions.

I've always wondered why VCDL goes out of it's way to shun hunters but it's because of the relationship with VaHDA I suppose.

#3 of course is broken up into:

3A. People who hunt, target shoot, carry for self defense both CHP and OC.
3B. ChiPpers who think the world starts and stops with them.
3C. OC'ers that have no use for CHP's.

Seems to be divided into equal thirds.

Does that equate into a unified Political force?

peter nap said:

Many Sportsmen are a problem...like Chippers, they have tunnel vision.
Gradually, they're starting to see category 3 which of course has it's own sub divisions.

I've always wondered why VCDL goes out of it's way to shun hunters but it's because of the relationship with VaHDA I suppose.

#3 of course is broken up into:

3A. People who hunt, target shoot, carry for self defense both CHP and OC.
3B. ChiPpers who think the world starts and stops with them.
3C. OC'ers that have no use for CHP's.

Seems to be divided into equal thirds.

Does that equate into a unified Political force?

Click to expand...

I see what's you're saying. I was applying Set Theory by including (without saying it) that these 3 factions (or sets) can include the other two for many individuals.

So, a person can belong to the #3 set and also be a #2, for example.

The sub-categories within #3 can be more problematic, as you have pointed out here before. Mode of carry is a personal choice, and in theory everyone within #3 should be supportive of everyone ELSE. This repeatedly has not been the case.

Perhaps a NATO treat is in order.

Repeater said:

I see what's you're saying. I was applying Set Theory by including (without saying it) that these 3 factions (or sets) can include the other two for many individuals.

So, a person can belong to the #3 set and also be a #2, for example.

The sub-categories within #3 can be more problematic, as you have pointed out here before. Mode of carry is a personal choice, and in theory everyone within #3 should be supportive of everyone ELSE. This repeatedly has not been the case.

Perhaps a NATO treat is in order.

Click to expand...

Thank Heaven...the old Repeater is back!

To answer your question....I don't know. It's like trying to mix oil and water with some of the groups even though we're all closely related.

peter nap said:

Thank Heaven...the old Repeater is back!

To answer your question....I don't know. It's like trying to mix oil and water with some of the groups even though we're all closely related.

Click to expand...

You may not be able to actually mix them, but you can shake them up them to the point that, like oil and vinegar salad dressing, the two individual components become a (somewhat) unified whole.

I just hope that the shaking up happens before something gets through the statehouse, rather than afterwards.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

You may not be able to actually mix them, but you can shake them up them to the point that, like oil and vinegar salad dressing, the two individual components become a (somewhat) unified whole.

Click to expand...

There you go!!

I just hope that the shaking up happens before something gets through the statehouse, rather than afterwards.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth.

No matter what is said here and how some may want them to be, elections are not single issue items for most people. The sooner that is realized the quicker we can come together and fight for better and stronger gun rights. If the Republicans keep holding conventions to nominate very conservative candidates, get use to the results of this election. We need to accept others rights to choose their own lifestyle even though it does not fit yours, that's what choice is. If we become the party of inclusion and acceptance we will be accepted also and gain their support for our choices.

Make you choice carefully, we can continue to thrive or fall by the wayside.

Richard Bonnie on gun bans

Here is what a Hoplophobe thinks at taxpayer expense:

The most important change that should be made to gun policy is to make more gun purchases subject to background checks. Another important change is to prohibit firearm purchases (as well as possession in public) by individuals who have had misdemeanor convictions for violent offenses, especially those involving brandishing or firing guns. (Right now, people are disqualified from firearm purchase only if they have been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors involving domestic violence.) Doing this would disqualify individuals whose conduct has clearly demonstrated an elevated risk of violence, whether or not they have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Police should also have the authority to seize firearms from individuals whose behavior demonstrates an elevated risk of violence, as allowed by laws in Indiana and Connecticut.

Click to expand...

So according to the Professor, ANYONE convicted of brandishing is considered an elevated risk of violence per se.

Not only that, he literally supports gun-grabbing authority, again for those who are an elevated risk of violence per se.

As Hitler proved to the world

Repeater said:

Here is what a Hoplophobe thinks at taxpayer expense:


So according to the Professor, ANYONE convicted of brandishing is considered an elevated risk of violence per se.

Not only that, he literally supports gun-grabbing authority, again for those who are an elevated risk of violence per se.

Click to expand...

Fascists support gun-grabbing. As did Stalin, Mao and just about every dictator on the planet.

Sad to see that Fascism has now come to Virginia with this past election.

va_tazdad said:

Fascists support gun-grabbing. As did Stalin, Mao and just about every dictator on the planet.

Sad to see that Fascism has now come to Virginia with this past election.

Click to expand...

Tragic. Wonder how many Virginians will die as a consequence of "gun safety" (sic).