FARK.com: (6968862) Virginia frees its citizens from the tyranny of being limited to purchasing a mere 12 handguns a year

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Virginia frees its citizens from the tyranny of being limited to purchasing a mere 12 handguns a year (usnews.msnbc.msn.com)		260
		More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, Gun politics, helicopter crashed, Virginians, Stockton, Bob McDonnell, Virginia Law, NBC News

• • •

667 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:11 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6968862

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

260 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

EWreckedSean		2012-02-29 01:17:06 PM

Paschal: EWreckedSean 2012-02-29 12:31:38 PM

If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners
-----
Always a classic. Just like when Gabby was shot in Arizona. All those guys carrying concealed weapons saved the day. LOL. In fact, as I recall, one of the guys who was packing said he almost shot the wrong guy.

How long did the Gabby shootout last? Viriginia Tech took place over the course of hours and he shot nearly 60 people.

stagepoke		2012-02-29 01:18:07 PM

I used for deer and elk

Yeah, I hate it when I'm overrun with elk. damn them.

indylaw		2012-02-29 01:21:28 PM

Jairzinho: indylaw: Jairzinho: indylaw: So as long as there is any crime, any new law is justified?

Will they new law help to prevent or decrease the chances of that crime from happening without infringing on the rights of others? Then yes.

Strict control of glove availability and characteristics would result in more fingerprints at the scenes of burglaries, and more successful prosecutions thereof. Do you really NEED more than one pair of gloves? If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if there's a registry?

Your glove/thief analogy doesn't make any sense.

The Virginia law was about arms sales, arms that could end up being sold by traffickers. Your glove analogy is like saying we should restrict truck sales because arm traffickers use them to commit their illicit activity (which no one is saying). Try something else.

Your logic, if I follow it correctly, is that a law limiting the number of guns a person may purchase is necessary or desirable because it makes it more difficult for people to engage in another criminalized but morally neutral behavior (there is nothing inherently immoral about selling guns) in order to make it more difficult for people to use guns to commit violent crimes.

By that same logic, criminalizing certain glove commerce and ownership is even more justifiable, because the act of purchasing a glove is removed by only one step from actual, inherently immoral behavior (burglary). Thus a law limiting the number and type of gloves a person may purchase is necessary or desirable because it makes it more difficult for people to engage in burglary.

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:22:38 PM

The Homer Tax: sprawl15: Straw purchasing is already illegal. Why not focus efforts on stopping straw purchasing and methods of intelligently detecting it rather than just swinging a heavy axe and calling it a day?

What are some methods of doing this that the gun lobby would actually support.

Since the current solution is also one that isn't supported by the gun lobby, why does the gun lobby's opinion matter? Any solution will piss them off, so we might as well pick a good one instead of this pile of stupidity.

janeuner: The once-per-month thing was a simple regulation which required little oversight, all while taking the incentive out of straw purchasing in the first place.

Is the problem straw purchasing, or is it criminal elements using guns in their crimes?

qorkfiend: How would you detect straw purchasing, when the only pieces of information you have is the (legal) purchaser and the number of guns purchased?

I'd love to see a simple national registry, streamlined and secure. If you purchase a gun, that should be tracked. It's no different than vehicle registration, and I consider the right to own a vehicle just as fundamental as the right to own a gun. Then again, I don't believe in the idea of state sovereignty and find the duplication of laws to be as much an infringement on individual rights as the laws themselves.

People catch straw purchasers all the time without resorting to this kind of action - see the straw purchasers discovered and ignored during the Fast and Furious operation.

janeuner: The once-per-month thing was a simple regulation which required little oversight, all while taking the incentive out of straw purchasing in the first place.

Honestly? The simplest way to stop the straw purchasing is legalizing drugs. Take away the gang's incentive and cash flow, and they have no reason to need guns in the first place. That addresses the actual problem (criminals shooting people) rather than just one method of a third party obtaining guns.

Incog_Neeto		2012-02-29 01:22:54 PM

I wish I could afford that many guns, this just makes me feel poor.

rwhamann		2012-02-29 01:24:15 PM

indylaw: rwhamann: indylaw: rwhamann: The word militia has been defined by the Supreme Court as the people. Please stop bringing that up in gun threads, dude.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Your argument that the Second Amendment is obsolete or necessarily related to military service has been discredited.

That's what I was saying.

The court clarified it as an individual's right, and not a right "to the people" (a collective right or power). The argument for the longest time by gun control advocates was that the Second Amendment protected only a vague, general right of The People (as in We the People) to have guns, because The People have militias. The argument was that as long as the government didn't infringe upon state militias, it could place any restriction on individual gun ownership that it desired.

There was a distinction between "the people" and "a person," which the court resolved in favor of the latter. That's where we're miscommunicating, I guess.

Yes, I should have been more clear. The post I was referring to was one of that individual's many posts pulling the militia card. It's been debunked, in thread and in court, yet he still trots it out like an automaton. What do you call reverse dittoheads?

Spade		2012-02-29 01:24:50 PM

qorkfiend: The Homer Tax: Neither am I. I fully support the repeal of this law.

Even given the very real risk of straw purchasers from out of state?

People from out of state can't buy handguns at a VA gun store.

qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

All of my .22 LR target pistols and rifles?

Minus1Kelvin		2012-02-29 01:25:17 PM

Incog_Neeto: I wish I could afford that many guns, this just makes me feel poor.

Yeah I think if I had that kind of money to burn I'd just maybe have one gun, a good home security system, and spend the rest of other stuff...seems kind of excessive to want to have that many but whatevs.

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:26:38 PM

qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-02-29 01:27:26 PM

devildog123: The only guns I've ever pointed at people were given to me by the United States government for that express purpose.

So how many people have you killed?

indylaw		2012-02-29 01:31:16 PM

sprawl15: qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

Anti-gun crusaders are not really known for their nuance.

One could argue philosophically that any weapon can be designed with a deterrent purpose as well as the purpose of destruction. When Presidents ordered the manufacture of more nuclear weapons during the Cold War, I doubt that they did so for the singular purpose of being able to vaporize as many Commies as possible, though that is the obvious implication of a nuclear arsenal. They did so in order to project power and prevent aggression against U.S. interests.

devildog123		2012-02-29 01:35:17 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: devildog123: The only guns I've ever pointed at people were given to me by the United States government for that express purpose.

So how many people have you killed?

I have no idea. That isn't an "Internet Tough Guy^tm" answer, it's a "it was confusing, there were a lot of rounds going downrange and not all of them were mine". Combat isn't Call of Duty. I can deep down hope that I managed to not kill anyone. Do I believe that? Not really, but I honestly have to say, I don't know.

beta_plus		2012-02-29 01:36:31 PM

For the last time, the ACLU has made it clear that the second, ninth, and tenth amendments are not real amendments.

scarmig		2012-02-29 01:37:41 PM

qorkfiend:

Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

The one with the lengthened barrel, trigger job, and custom grip: designed for the express purpose of hitting things further than a pistol is supposed to be accurate.

AKA, no gun is ever manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things. They are manufactured to chuck projectiles where the operator wants them. THAT IS ALL. Everything else is up to the operator.

Try it for yourself. Go get a firearm, any of them. Lay it on the table, back away, and wait for it to fulfill it's singular purpose of killing things. Go ahead. We'll wait. Let us know how it goes.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-02-29 01:37:52 PM

devildog123: The_Six_Fingered_Man: devildog123: The only guns I've ever pointed at people were given to me by the United States government for that express purpose.

So how many people have you killed?

I have no idea. That isn't an "Internet Tough Guytm" answer, it's a "it was confusing, there were a lot of rounds going downrange and not all of them were mine". Combat isn't Call of Duty. I can deep down hope that I managed to not kill anyone. Do I believe that? Not really, but I honestly have to say, I don't know.

So you hope that you managed to not kill anyone, when that was the express purpose of pointing your firearm at the person in the first place? Did the government not teach you the same basic gun rules as I got in the military?

I, for one, have never pointed a firearm at anything I did not expressly intend to kill. If it was not your intent to kill anything, you should have never pointed your firearm.

indylaw		2012-02-29 01:38:58 PM

beta_plus: For the last time, the ACLU has made it clear that the second, ninth, and tenth amendments are not real amendments.

They have?

Please show me a case where the ACLU has taken the position that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to possess firearms. Just one. I'll even take a press release.

whizbangthedirtfarmer		2012-02-29 01:40:26 PM

indylaw: sprawl15: qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

Anti-gun crusaders are not really known for their nuance.

One could argue philosophically that any weapon can be designed with a deterrent purpose as well as the purpose of destruction. When Presidents ordered the manufacture of more nuclear weapons during the Cold War, I doubt that they did so for the singular purpose of being able to vaporize as many Commies as possible, though that is the obvious implication of a nuclear arsenal. They did so in order to project power and prevent aggression against U.S. interests.

You make the mistake of lumping everyone into an "anti-gun crusader." Yeah, there are some people who look at England and see the fantastically low homicide by weapon rates there and wish the U.S. could receive a fraction of that legislation, but many people simply don't get where there is such a radical element of the gun-owning party who, under the presumed assertion of their rights, MUST BUY EVERY FARKING GUN THEY SEE, even if that means that the laws need to be changed to assist THEM in getting their weapons. Never mind the original purpose or intent of the original law, and never mind that it has now become easier for people to buy guns out the wazoo if they do want to commit a crime, because, dammit, you get to buy some more guns.

Yes, by all means, have some guns. But part of being a responsible gun owner, I would hope, would also require some common sense. Like I said in a different thread, if you make it easier for everyone to have guns, you will end up with a lot of extraordinarily stupid people with lots of guns. One woman I knew once told me she had fifteen guns placed in strategic locations around her home: one on top of the refrigerator, one in the back of her closet, and so on. I asked her if the kids knew about the location of these weapons, and she said, "oh, no, they'd never find them." Keep in mind these guns are all full loaded, and this was before trigger lock legislation was passed.

My dad went through a "guns are neat" phase, too, and bought rifles and pistols and so on. He has shot them each maybe once or twice. Some of them, never. Another guy I know has so many guns and gun cabinets in his basement that he needs to hire a small forklift to move them as they refinish the basement. When I asked him why he needed that may guns, he said it was his kids' college fund. He couldn't even remember many of the weapons he had: he purchased them, played with them for a while, and locked them away.

There is absolutely NO harm to you if you can only purchase one gun a month. There IS harm, however, if, in your frenzy to "collect" firearms to "assert" a right that has never been in danger leads to relaxed laws for the criminal and criminally stupid.

qorkfiend		2012-02-29 01:40:49 PM

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:41:06 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I, for one, have never pointed a firearm at anything I did not expressly intend to kill. If it was not your intent to kill anything, you should have never pointed your firearm.

img18.imageshack.us

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-02-29 01:41:12 PM

indylaw: beta_plus: For the last time, the ACLU has made it clear that the second, ninth, and tenth amendments are not real amendments.

They have?

Please show me a case where the ACLU has taken the position that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to possess firearms. Just one. I'll even take a press release.

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

pwhp_67		2012-02-29 01:41:43 PM

EWreckedSean: How long did the Gabby shootout last?

Long enough you trolling sack of shiat...

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-02-29 01:42:12 PM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I, for one, have never pointed a firearm at anything I did not expressly intend to kill. If it was not your intent to kill anything, you should have never pointed your firearm.

[img18.imageshack.us image 640x495]

I'm not trying to be a badass, just observing proper firearm protocol. This guy pointed his firearm at someone that he hoped he would not kill. That's bad protocol. He should never have been issued a firearm in the first place.

qorkfiend		2012-02-29 01:46:05 PM

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:46:21 PM

qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

It was a response the equally facile argument that "only two of the guns in my house have been used to kill things".

That's not an argument, nor is it facile. The argument he was making was the traditional 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.

Magorn		2012-02-29 01:46:25 PM

EWreckedSean: If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners.

Explain how you'd get around the "blue on blue" problem in a situation like that?

how do you disntguish the virtously armed students and the madman with a gun?

FightDirector		2012-02-29 01:47:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I, for one, have never pointed a firearm at anything I did not expressly intend to kill. If it was not your intent to kill anything, you should have never pointed your firearm.

[img18.imageshack.us image 640x495]

I'm not trying to be a badass, just observing proper firearm protocol. This guy pointed his firearm at someone that he hoped he would not kill. That's bad protocol. He should never have been issued a firearm in the first place.

I think you're misreading something pretty heavily there. You can certainly point a firearm downrange with the INTENT to kill (if you hit something), and still a) not know if you hit something, and b) hold out hope that you won't kill someone.

Plunging fire is all about this, for example. You can't necessarily see what's in the beaten zone while you're shooting.

He's saying he put rounds downrange with intent, but doesn't know if he actually killed anyone. He hopes he didn't. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive.

indylaw		2012-02-29 01:48:31 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: indylaw: beta_plus: For the last time, the ACLU has made it clear that the second, ninth, and tenth amendments are not real amendments.

They have?

Please show me a case where the ACLU has taken the position that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to possess firearms. Just one. I'll even take a press release.

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

I'll be damned. Point 6FM.

/the ACLU would not petition a court to allow a governmental body to control guns - there's a difference between saying that the ACLU doesn't deem the 2nd Amendment to be a topic of interest for litigation on the one hand, and saying that the ACLU is arguing in court for a return to the militia-only view of gun rights.

PsiChick		2012-02-29 01:48:38 PM

Hey, Virginia. You do realize guns are not, in fact, a disposable camera, right?

Fubini		2012-02-29 01:49:38 PM

sprawl15: qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

As a gun owner myself I don't necessarily believe that this is an inappropriate point to make.

All of the guns I have (surplus military rifles) were expressly made to kill and maim people. Whenever I take someone shooting for the first time I make sure they know and understand this, if for no other reason than to underscore the realities of using a gun safely.

It's important to be honest on both sides of the issue- gun advocates have to acknowledge the reality that guns are primarily designed to kill people. In return, gun control advocates have to recognize that the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to use their guns in an aggressive manner, ever.

Similarly, gun advocates have to recognize that pistols are a fundamentally different class of weapon than long arms, and gun control advocates have to recognize that this doesn't necessarily qualify pistols to be singled out for overreaching regulation.

My anecdotal evidence is that everyone I know who owns a pistol or revolver has gotten one for the express purpose of self defense, not sport shooting. Everyone I know who has a rifle has gotten it for the express purpose of hunting or target shooting. In my opinion, it's silly to treat pistols and rifles the same way, and part of this is acknowledging that (again, in my opinion) pistols are gotten with specifically for their ability to kill/maim, without which, they would be an ineffective self defense weapon. Given that they're primarily gotten for their ability to harm others, I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate them differently than other guns.

indylaw		2012-02-29 01:49:43 PM

qorkfiend: Deterrence is predicated on the threat of destruction. We built more nukes to project power and prevent aggression against US interests via threat of nuclear attack. For something to be a true deterrent, you must be seen as both willing and capable of using it for its threatened purpose: destruction.

OK... still don't see your point.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-02-29 01:50:52 PM

FightDirector: I think you're misreading something pretty heavily there.

That's entirely possible.

qorkfiend		2012-02-29 01:52:21 PM

scarmig: qorkfiend:

Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

The one with the lengthened barrel, trigger job, and custom grip: designed for the express purpose of hitting things further than a pistol is supposed to be accurate.

AKA, no gun is ever manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things. They are manufactured to chuck projectiles where the operator wants them. THAT IS ALL. Everything else is up to the operator.

Try it for yourself. Go get a firearm, any of them. Lay it on the table, back away, and wait for it to fulfill it's singular purpose of killing things. Go ahead. We'll wait. Let us know how it goes.

Very well. If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things. You use a gun to kill something, and target shooting to practice towards that end, even if an individual operator does not use it in that fashion. There are no other purposes. Would you claim that cars are not used for transportation because you bought one, and left it in your garage?

whizbangthedirtfarmer		2012-02-29 01:52:34 PM

scarmig: qorkfiend:

Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

The one with the lengthened barrel, trigger job, and custom grip: designed for the express purpose of hitting things further than a pistol is supposed to be accurate.

AKA, no gun is ever manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things. They are manufactured to chuck projectiles where the operator wants them. THAT IS ALL. Everything else is up to the operator.

Try it for yourself. Go get a firearm, any of them. Lay it on the table, back away, and wait for it to fulfill it's singular purpose of killing things. Go ahead. We'll wait. Let us know how it goes.

Oh, thank God they were all just paperweights. Phew. I thought that those projectiles could injure someone, even AGAINST THE INTENT OF MANY GUN OPERATORS.

/waiting for you to bring out the "knives are dangerous so let's ban them, too" argument

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:54:38 PM

Fubini: All of the guns I have (surplus military rifles) were expressly made to kill and maim people.

Which has nothing to do with use. The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever, yet what actually matters is what people use it for. That's why attempting to hit someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon despite the non-violent intent of the manufacturer.

qorkfiend		2012-02-29 01:54:43 PM

indylaw: qorkfiend: Deterrence is predicated on the threat of destruction. We built more nukes to project power and prevent aggression against US interests via threat of nuclear attack. For something to be a true deterrent, you must be seen as both willing and capable of using it for its threatened purpose: destruction.

OK... still don't see your point.

You made a comment about the deterrence factor of guns being different than the destruction factor of guns. I objected to this differentiation, since the deterrent aspect is predicated on the destruction aspect.

lennavan		2012-02-29 01:55:59 PM

Good, it's a stupid law. There's no actual harm it prevents or reason to have it. It would take an amazingly retarded argument to suggest the law does something good. You know, one like this:

Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was wounded in the shooting that left the gunman and 32 others dead at Virginia Tech, said she was disappointed by the governor's action.

"Getting rid of the one-handgun-a-month law will make it easier for gun traffickers to purchase handguns in bulk," she said in a written statement. "There have been too many tragedies in other states fueled by guns that come from Virginia, and this will only make the situation worse."

Yeah, you're stupid. Your kid didn't even die in the shooting, so you don't get a free pass on being stupid.

The shooter that got 32 people had two guns. TWO. SO he would just have to wait a month under this law. Whoopdy farking doo.

Friday, February 2
Cho ordered a handgun online
Tuesday, March 13
Cho purchased a 9 millimeter Glock 19 handgun

Oh look, your stupid law wouldn't have even prevented the tragedy that wounded your daughter. He didn't even shoot people until April. He could have had 3 guns under your law.

Jairzinho		2012-02-29 01:57:06 PM

indylaw: Your logic, if I follow it correctly, is that a law limiting the number of guns a person may purchase is necessary or desirable because it makes it more difficult for people to engage in another criminalized but morally neutral behavior (there is nothing inherently immoral about selling guns) in order to make it more difficult for people to use guns to commit violent crimes.

There are mainly two types of people who may like to licitly buy lots of guns in a short period of time: Dealers and collectors. Legit dealers don't have problems. Regular people (say anyone needing less than 12 guns a year) are not in anyway impacted from that restriction. The law didn't target directly the use of guns by criminals. The target was gun trafficking.

indylaw: By that same logic, criminalizing certain glove commerce and ownership is even more justifiable, because the act of purchasing a glove is removed by only one step from actual, inherently immoral behavior (burglary). Thus a law limiting the number and type of gloves a person may purchase is necessary or desirable because it makes it more difficult for people to engage in burglary.

That's where your analogy fails. Gloves is not a regulated object being illegally traded, act which was the target of the law. Gloves, cars, guns and other things are tools to commit crimes and this law wasn't addressing that.

sprawl15		2012-02-29 01:57:09 PM

qorkfiend: If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things.

You still haven't come up with a point for this argument, even if we assume it were true.

lennavan		2012-02-29 01:57:56 PM

Fubini: sprawl15: qorkfiend: Out of all the guns in your house right now, which ones were not manufactured with the singular purpose of killing things?

This is a particularly facile argument.

As a gun owner myself I don't necessarily believe that this is an inappropriate point to make.

All of the guns I have (surplus military rifles) were expressly made to kill and maim people. Whenever I take someone shooting for the first time I make sure they know and understand this, if for no other reason than to underscore the realities of using a gun safely.

It's important to be honest on both sides of the issue- gun advocates have to acknowledge the reality that guns are primarily designed to kill people. In return, gun control advocates have to recognize that the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to use their guns in an aggressive manner, ever.

Similarly, gun advocates have to recognize that pistols are a fundamentally different class of weapon than long arms, and gun control advocates have to recognize that this doesn't necessarily qualify pistols to be singled out for overreaching regulation.

My anecdotal evidence is that everyone I know who owns a pistol or revolver has gotten one for the express purpose of self defense, not sport shooting. Everyone I know who has a rifle has gotten it for the express purpose of hunting or target shooting. In my opinion, it's silly to treat pistols and rifles the same way, and part of this is acknowledging that (again, in my opinion) pistols are gotten with specifically for their ability to kill/maim, without which, they would be an ineffective self defense weapon. Given that they're primarily gotten for their ability to harm others, I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate them differently than other guns.

You are far too reasonable for Fark.com, let alone a second amendment discussion. If people were like you in the real world, we'd actually have sane gun laws.

DrewCurtisJr		2012-02-29 01:58:59 PM

Spade: what's to stop them from getting a VA CHP and becoming exempt from the regulation and once again buying as many as they want?

The same things that are keeping these gun collectors who are supposedly so harmed by these unreasonable limits from getting one?

qorkfiend		2012-02-29 01:59:08 PM

sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

lennavan		2012-02-29 01:59:10 PM

Magorn: EWreckedSean: If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners.

Explain how you'd get around the "blue on blue" problem in a situation like that?

how do you disntguish the virtously armed students and the madman with a gun?

Shoot em all up now, sort em out later.

SurfaceTension		2012-02-29 01:59:29 PM

rwhamann: The word militia has been defined by the Supreme Court as the people. Please stop bringing that up in gun threads, dude.

Actually I think the term in the 2nd amendment is 'Well Regulated' meaning (in the 18th century definition of the word) well trained, monitored and equipped. I have no problem with citizens being well equipped, but they MUST have the proper training and monitoring (licensing). Seems to me the 2nd Amendment would allow for that.

sprawl15		2012-02-29 02:00:57 PM

qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

indylaw		2012-02-29 02:01:43 PM

qorkfiend: Very well. If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things. You use a gun to kill something, and target shooting to practice towards that end, even if an individual operator does not use it in that fashion. There are no other purposes. Would you claim that cars are not used for transportation because you bought one, and left it in your garage?

You keep saying purpose, purpose, purpose, as if the only reason that anyone might make, sell, or possess a gun is to kill something. To the contrary, I think that most people who own a gun hope never to have to kill anyone. Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm. If someone breaks into your house, you may aim your firearm at them and give them an opportunity to withdraw. This is not consistent with a purpose of killing anyone. It's consistent with a primary purpose of deterring harm to yourself and therefore preserving life. Saying that gun possession has the "singular" purpose of killing things negates that people own guns with the intent only to project a threat, and that's simply false.

Guns have the power to kill. That's indisputable. So do baseball bats, kitchen knives, household cleaners and automobiles. Some people use those objects to kill. But that doesn't mean that their purpose is to kill things.

/I also dispute that killing people or animals is an invalid purpose, but your mileage may vary depending on your personal morality. In my view of the world, if my choice to kill an intruder or allow that intruder to kill me or a family member, there is nothing immoral in killing the intruder.

Fubini		2012-02-29 02:02:10 PM

sprawl15: Fubini: All of the guns I have (surplus military rifles) were expressly made to kill and maim people.

Which has nothing to do with use. The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever, yet what actually matters is what people use it for. That's why attempting to hit someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon despite the non-violent intent of the manufacturer.

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, but I don't think it's proper for gun owners to claim that their guns are totally harmless inert chunks of metal. By the virtue of it being a gun, it deserves some special consideration above and beyond other ordinary objects.

One poster above claimed that you should lay a gun on a table and wait for it to fulfill it's purpose of killing people to say that people are ultimately responsible for how they use their guns. That's true, and I don't disagree with it, but it's also true that you really can't just pick up random metal rods and suddenly have a weapon with the lethality of a firearm.

Mearen		2012-02-29 02:05:17 PM

cptjeff: jbuist: Magorn: Bbut I'm having a very hard time understanding why someone would have any legitimate need to buy more than twelve handguns a year.

I've never bought 12 in a year but I've bought multiple in a month. Hell, the first two I ever bought were on the same weekend.

It was a stupid law that annoyed people. The ATF already gets notified if you buy multiple handguns at one time from the same dealer. If you walk into Bob's Guns & Fishin' Stuff to buy 20 pistols they're going to hear about it.

It's not a stupid law. Virginia used to be a major hub of gun trafficing- the bulk of guns involved in crimes on the east coast could be tracked back to Virginia. They passed this law, and that ended immediatly.

It was a damned effective law, and only a minor inconveinence to a vey small subset of legitimate gun buyers.

It IS a stupid law that does nothing to stop the gun trafficking problem you describe. NY still claims all of their "illegal" guns come from Virginia. Oh and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Teufelaffe		2012-02-29 02:05:43 PM

qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

Biatheletes the world around will be absolutely horrified when they find this out.

sprawl15		2012-02-29 02:06:28 PM

Fubini: I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, but I don't think it's proper for gun owners to claim that their guns are totally harmless inert chunks of metal.

Who the fark is arguing that? Nobody's saying they can't be used dangerously.

I'm just saying that manufacturer's intent is irrelevant. We should regulate based on use and personal intent - like you pointed out - instead of the manufacturer's label.

If someone designed and advertised a minivan as the best tool for running over homeless people in existence, we wouldn't suddenly need to regulate it based on the manufacturer's label.

Contents Under Pressure		2012-02-29 02:07:59 PM

I'm a great big greeny eco-weenie libtard and have no problem with this. Apparently, they were limited to one purchase a month, which translates to 12 a year. What if a person had a set of twins and wanted to get them hunting rifles for Christmas? They'd have to buy one in November and another in December. Seems arbitrary to me.

Plus, if you want to be all hyperbolic about shooting from a clock tower, a nutter only needs one gun. It's not like the law delayed that.

Displayed 50 of 260 comments