Doug Wilder will NOT endorse Deeds

imported post

This is not good news for Creigh Deeds:

Former Democratic governor L. Douglas Wilder said today that he will not endorse either candidate in the race for Virginia governor despite serious courting from both candidates, Gov. Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democration National Committee, and even President Barack Obama.

The decision can only be considered a slap in the face to Democrat Creigh Deeds and a victory -- of sorts -- for Republican Bob McDonnell. No one really expected Wilder to endorse McDonnell because he never has supported a Republican, but declining to endorse anyone -- and resisting Obama's personal lobbying --- sends enough of a message.

Wilder's statement:

Furthermore, In my conversations with the people across the state, I have not encountered anyone who has listed as their priority the need for them to have more handguns. The present law permits anyone of sufficient age, who is not a felon, to be able to buy one gun a month; twelve a year, twenty four a year for couples etc..

Mr. Deeds thinks that’s not enough and signed a pledge to repeal that law.

This action would allow the truck loads of guns to come back in exchange for drugs from those Northeastern states where gun laws are more stringent. This law was put on the books by Democrats and Republicans because they had seen where those guns go to in our cities and suburban areas where the violence occurs. Partly because of that law, as Mayor, I was able to have the lowest crime rate in our capital city of Richmond in 30 years.

I do not see how endorsing a proposal to have more handguns brought into our cities and suburban areas qualifies as any type of urban renewal plan.

For this situation to exist and for Democrats who lead our party to say nothing is puzzling and inexplicable.

imported post

And of course this is just silly.

Either background checks stop criminals from buying guns, or they don't. Or what is probably the true case, Wilder views all gun owners as criminals. In any case, one cannot reconcile his statements with the idea that background checks are effective, so he must believe they are not.

Best argument I've heard to date against the 1 gun per month law is that our armed forces personnel are sometimes not home for more than one month at at time, which limits them to buying 1 gun per deployment.

The statement link (and host home page) is not working for me at the moment, perhaps this news story has crashed their web server!

TFred

imported post

Wilder and Kaine are idiots from the same village...

imported post

Links are still working, as far as I can tell.

Here's more news:

FOP Endorses McDonnell, GOP Ticket

The Virginia chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed former attorney general Bob McDonnell, the Republican nominee for governor, this morning at a news conference on Capitol Square in Richmond.
The group represents more than 8,000 local, state and federal law enforcement officials and lodges across Virginia.
The FOP also endorsed McDonnell's running mates, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, who is running for re-election against Jody Wagner, and attorney general candidate Ken Cuccinelli, who faces Steve Shannon.

There were signs that Democrat Creigh Deeds may have trouble securing the FOP endorsement as early as last week when he gave the FOP and another group representing state public safety employees differing answers about whether he supports collective bargaining for law enforcement personnel.

"Bob McDonnell understands that one of the primary functions of government is to keep citizens safe,'' said Tommy Edwards, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. "His record is one of leadership on major public safety initiatives and a steadfast commitment to Virginia's public safety professionals. Bob McDonnell is a leader Virginians can count on to keep our communities safe."

imported post

If I have the money, who is the government to tell me what I can and can't buy?

imported post

"24 for couples"

It's still 12 for each person though... or is the mayor advocating straw purchases in order for non-CHP holders to get around the limit?

imported post

curtiswr wrote:

"24 for couples"

It's still 12 for each person though... or is the mayor advocating straw purchases in order for non-CHP holders to get around the limit?

Click to expand...

Ha, yeah that's exactly what I thought when I saw that... I guess straw purchases are OK for couples then?

TFred

imported post

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law. Whatever???

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law. Whatever???

Click to expand...

Are you ******* serious? :?

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law. Whatever???

Click to expand...

The most obvious demographic affected by this law is members of the US Armed Forces who are between the ages of 18 and 21, who are deployed overseas. When they return "home" it is often for less than one month, and they do not qualify for a Virginia CHP which may be used to excuse them from the restriction.

As noted by gubernatorial candidate McDonnell, who originally supported the law, the background check procedure has been vastly improved since this law was created. It's a relic of past, insufficient technology, and is no longer needed.

TFred

imported post

"Bob McDonnell understands that one of the primary functions of government is to keep citizens safe,''

So how does arming law-abiding citizens not make communities and society safe?

Considering that police show up AFTER a crime is commited, an armed society is the most logical step. Wait, there I go with logic again.

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law. Whatever???

Click to expand...

I sure do hope this is sarcasm. If it is disregaurd the following.

Just because it does not affect you doesn't mean the law should exists. The law only hurts the economy and obviously only affects law abiding citizens. It seems to only put further restrictions and regulations on law abiding citizens. Last time I checked the 2A doesn't say we have the right to keep and bare arms, slowly overtime purchasing them one per month.

"Bob McDonnell understands that one of the primary functions of government is to keep citizens safe" - *coughbullcrapcough*

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law.

Click to expand...

:shock:

imported post

DrMark wrote:

T Dubya wrote:

I have no problem with the 1 gun a month law and I think getting rid of it would be stupid. It doesn't affect me anyway. I don't understand why anyone doesn't like Virginia's 1 gun a month law.

Click to expand...

:shock:

Click to expand...

:what::what:Background checks are sufficient. There are many reasons as well for purchasing more thanone gun a month. As was said above it is not for the government to determine what I can and can't buy. Next thing is they will be limiting us to one box of ice cream a month and what have you. :uhoh:

imported post

TFred wrote:

curtiswr wrote:

"24 for couples"

It's still 12 for each person though... or is the mayor advocating straw purchases in order for non-CHP holders to get around the limit?

Click to expand...

Ha, yeah that's exactly what I thought when I saw that... I guess straw purchases are OK for couples then?

TFred

Click to expand...

It's not so much a straw purchase but that couples share their things so it effectively becomes 24 firearms for two people per year. But I suspect you knew that already.

I would love to be able to buy more than one / 30 days. It's a part of the reason why I have a VA CHP. I'm not subject to that 1/30 thing.

imported post

I knew I was going to get some :uhoh:when I said I have no problem with the one-gun-a-month law. There are some folks on this forum that have met me and can vouch that I am an activist that's in it to win it. If you look at my past posts and my affection for the VCDL it probably looks like I am being sarcastic maybe even trolling.

Someone brought up a good point about the military. I had not put thatinto perspective. We do not need to make it difficult for our service members to exercise their rights. Point noted.

Here's my thing. Too often when I go to one of my favorite gun stores I see mobs role in. I mean foul-mouthed, disrespectful, thugs and the like. All to often I see them spitting gum, leaving trash, and talking nonsense. They go into the stores, they talk a lot,and thenthey get someone to buy a pistol. More often than not a female. They sometimes walk into the store and take pictures of guns with their cellphones, ask absurd questions, act foolish, etc. etc. I know they arenot responsible citizens much less responsible gun owners.

CHP holders are exempt from the one-gun-a-month law. It doesn't have any effect on me. I don't care, but I think that there is the possibility that the one-gun-a-month law slows down the thugs and at the very least slows them from providing firearms to bad guys.

I hope you all don't hate me now.



By the way, my first post might have been a little abrasive. Maybe I could have formatted itdifferently. My apologies if it rubbed my fellow activists the wrong way.

imported post

I for one don't hate you because of your view. To a certain extent I do agree. In saying that, it should be a voluntary issue with the gun dealer to deny them the purchase. This would be a good pro gun example for the dealers to make a statementin saying we don't need any more laws and we are responsible enough to question with good judgment and deny sales of the questionable kind.

imported post

T Dubya wrote:
Nah, I don't think anyone hates you.

I simply find it offensive that the Gov't would limit the gun rights of the law-abiding in the name of potentially addressingcriminal activity of others.

The nature of our nation's origins demands punishment for laws broken, not pre-emtive rights restrictions in hopes of crime prevention.

With my CHP, it doesn't affect me directly either. I, and others, were simply schocked that a VCDL supporter would endorse this gun control measure.

imported post

I did not like Wilder as Governor. His agenda was horrible for gun owners. He is, however his own man. Does what he thinks he should. Gotta respect that. And you gotta respect his silver star.

imported post

kennys wrote:

I for one don't hate you because of your view. To a certain extent I do agree. In saying that, it should be a voluntary issue with the gun dealer to deny them the purchase.

Click to expand...

It already is, and that's how it should be.

The ATF repeatedly tells dealers that they are free to deny a purchase to anyone, at any time, if they have any uneasy feelings about the transaction.