SBX 16, is there no middle ground for gun control?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
With the upcoming Senate Bill #16, looks like the Dems will attempt to ban most guns, making a lot of VA citizens into felonies overnight.
We have a collection of antique guns with bayonet mounts, this will force us to sell or keep outside of VA. All or nothing... is there really no middle ground in gun control? https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16+pdf |
Anonymous
| I don't think I am reading that right. I thought it just pertains to sale not possession? If you already own it, you're grandfathered? |
Anonymous
The definition of an "assault weapon" in the proposed SB-16 covers only "semi-automatic, center-fire" rifles. Under both Virginia and federal law, an antique firearm is defined as being made on or before December 31, 1898. I've been collecting antique guns for many years, and have yet to see any semi-automatic center-fire rifles made before that date. As to there being a "middle ground on gun control"......I suppose that there could be. The problem is that there are some people out there who are doing everything they can to make it illegal for private citizens to possess any firearms at all. And they won't budge in their belief that nobody except the police and military should have guns. Just take the time to read some of the really crazy posts on this board and you'll see what I mean. |
Anonymous
| Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting. |
Anonymous
Just read the other firearm threads on this site. That is exactly what some of these lunatics want, tp punish the legal gun owners. |
Anonymous
Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said: "No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever." |
Anonymous
That's a troubling statement. That explicitly implies that _any_ public citizen is a candidate for gun ownership. Shades of proles and party. |
Anonymous
| You’d think they’d focus on popular things like increasing the minimum wage, wiping away the car tax, allowing greater exceptions to the Dillon Rule, or even some sort of red flag law or one of the milder gun control measures at the one hour session. |
Anonymous
The way the gun nuts and NRA have framed the debate, you can not take a gun away from known terrorist. It’s an all or nothing fight. All reasonable restrictions are fought tooth and nail. So when the day comes and it’s coming, you and op will have no say in how guns are regulated/restricted. Australia is coming and it’s your own fault. |
Anonymous
We have guns. You don’t want us to have them. We won’t give them up under any circumstance. Your move. |
Anonymous
|
Of course we can find a middle ground. SB16 and the banning of firearms is not in that ground.
Expand or enhance background checks. Funding for enforcement for laws already on the books Tax credits and incentives for using gun safes MENTAL HEALTH. |
Anonymous
Well, let's talk about that for a moment. First of all, how do you know that the guy is a terrorist? If he has made terrorist threats, he can be arrested and his firearms seized. If he has committed terrorist acts, he can be arrested and his firearms seized. If he is illegally in this country, he is not permitted to own firearms, and can be arrested and his firearms seized. If it's simply a matter of someone not liking the fact that the guy is a foreign immigrant and maybe attends worship services at a place that is "different", are you going to take his property for that? What else are you going to take? As for fighting "reasonable restrictions", what you consider "reasonable" may very well be considered incredibly unreasonable by other law-abiding citizens who just happen to own firearms. Let me give you an example: Some years ago, Representative Fortney M. "Pete" Stark (D-Cal) introduced a bill in the congress that would require all owners of so-called "assault weapons" to surrender them to the government or face heavy fines and long prison sentences. In his proposed bill, there were several means of identifying what an assault weapon was. One of the definitions was "...any rifle or shotgun with a bayonet mount." It just so happens that I had (and still have) a US Model 1855 Harpers Ferry Rifle Musket, made at the Harpers Ferry Arsenal in 1858. On muskets of that type a bayonet can be fitted over the end of the barrel, and the front sight serves as a lug to lock the bayonet in place. So I called Rep. Stark's office and talked with his legislative assistant, who helped write the proposed legislation. I explained how the front sight on my 150-year-old muzzle-loading musket served as a "bayonet mount", and asked if his proposal really made any sense. His first response was that I could simply grind the front sight off, thereby making the gun legal. When I asked him how defacing an antique musket would do any good in the war on crime, he said, "Well, we have to start somewhere." An attitude like that is what leads us to fight tooth and nail against what you call "reasonable restrictions". |
Anonymous
It is hyperbolic nonsense to suggest that a "known terrorist" cannot be disarmed. To meet that description, an individual presumably already would be a convicted felon, and hence ineligible to own firearms. As for "reasonable" restrictions, the punch list keeps changing and the debate (at least on DCUM) routinely ignores (typically through ignorance) the plethora of existing gun laws that have proven ineffective in preventing the criminal misuse of firearms by persons who, being criminals, ignore all those laws. |
Anonymous
It’s just trolling to come on here and say you wish there was a middle ground but also you think every attempt at restricting certain guns is evidence that a complete ban on gun ownership is the next step. |
Anonymous
You can’t play this card anymore. Northam, Slasaw, Beto, and Swalwell have all recently threatened to forcibly seize guns and to ban commonly owned firearms. Others have likely said it too, but those are the ones who come to mind immediately. Meanwhile, you all do nothing to prevent actual CRIME, choosing instead to focus on law-abiding people. You want to ban and confiscate everything. The mask has slipped and it won’t fit anymore. No compromise with any of you. Pass any law you want, good luck enforcing it. And btw, what a waste of Dem control in VA. Instead of getting things done that will be popular and productive, this stupid gun control push is building massive resistance and will be tied up in the courts forever. All so a guy who dressed in blackface and a KKK robe can retain support from so-called “progressives.” |