“An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need to buy more than 12 guns in a year, and a dangerous one shouldn’t be able to.” – Editorial: How many guns do you need? [via Virginia’s dailypress.com]
“An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need to buy more than 12 guns in a year, and a dangerous one shouldn’t be able to.” – Editorial: How many guns do you need? [via Virginia’s dailypress.com]
Again… with the bill of needs. Perhaps you clowns should deal with your gangbanger problem before you start talking to the non-career criminal portion of the population?
They can’t deal with it, so they’re trying to take power where they think they can.
Yup, one can argue that the modern gun control movement which started in the late 60s began because the left knew that it couldn’t do shit about crime. Its window dressing, it was then and it is now. Also, the Dems resurrected it as a public relations ploy, a response to Nixon’s “law-and-order” campaign rhetoric. Gun control became a means for the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is now the entirety of said party) to appeal to people’s fears, to assuage the call of “we must do something!” It also allowed them to side step very difficult questions regarding the war on drugs, poverty, fatherlessness, moral decay, a rising culture of criminality and the negative influence of the welfare state…not to mention deterministic environmental factors like lead poisoning and the massive demographic bubble created by the baby boom.
By the same logic, “An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need to buy more than one car every 10 years, and a dangerous one shouldn’t be able to.”
Except car ownership isn’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, while gun ownership is!
To me guns are art. And I collect art. So you’re telling me that we need to regulate the amount of art a citizen can buy?
Unless, of course, you are going to write laws about what is art and what is not art. In that case we have much bigger problems.
Car ownership is protected by the 9th amendment.
“I can go get 20 guns from the store tomorrow. I can do that Monday through Friday. They might start looking at me, but in Virginia our laws are so little, I can give guns away.”
I sincerely doubt that. No reputable FFL would sell you 20 guns without asking a lot of questions.
Isn’t there a multiple firearms purchase form that has to go to the ATF?
Only in the border states.
There is a Virginia form required to be delivered to the state police by the FFL if multiple transactions are made at the same FFL in a short timeframe. Note, not multiple purchases on the same transaction. FFLs treat it as “just this extra paperwork” and they claim its not used by the state police to create a registry … otherwise claiming “we don’t believe its retained that long by them.” I’m not positive if its VFTP or another inane bureaucratic form so if someone more familiar with the law in VA can chime in, that’d be great. I just happen to have been “that guy” recently when i got an XDS and then an XDM a week later… because extra mags… and i saw the paperwork being done and asked.
Yes,FFL are required to submit ATF form 3310.4 for multiple handgun transfers within 5 business days.
It depends on what you buy. If you bought a bunch of collectible stuff, it wouldn’t raise any questions. If you bought 20 Hi-Points, that might be a red flag. The store has to notify the ATF, but the ATF is unlikely to act on it. If you did it regularly, the ATF might investigate you once to see if you’re a collector, and then leave you alone after that.
“The problem is, some people focus on the right to bear arms and ignore the phrase “well-regulated.” The most oft-cited rationale for the right to bear arms is self-defense, and it is hard to imagine that people here feel unsafe if they can only buy a dozen guns in a calendar year.”
What they seem to ignore is that if arms are protected for the reason of a well regulated militia, then certainly that would protect the right to keep and bear the most modern military grade commonly in use. For the militia.
Gman,
you do realize “well-regulated.” means well trained?
I do, but why not use their logic against them.
Logic VS Feelz, good luck with that…
b/c their logic is not based on principles. and their words have double-meanings.
I do, you do, but the antis don’t. Make that won’t.
And what those who did not listen in elementary school lessons in sentence composition tend to ignore, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is stand alone, there is no “for as long as” or other qualifier attached to the preceding clause, which is explanatory only, in no way limiting. Many also seem to ignore the ease with which the 172% of Americans who they believe want all guns confiscated could pass an amendment allowing some manner of infringement on the acknowledged “right”, within a week (if that were true). For example, allowing a requirement for background checks, currently unconstitutional, or licensed bearing (carry), currently unconstitutional, purchase limits (would be unconstitutional), and on and on.
No amount of tinkering with the “constitution” would alter in any way the natural right to self defense. The “BOR” merely recognizes that natural right, doing nothing to grant it. And no amount of manipulation would change that natural right.
“Mr. McDonnell had voted in favor of the legislation as a delegate in 1993 but campaigned on a promise to repeal it, citing his “duty to protect the Second Amendment.”
The problem with that logic is, there is no reason sensible gun laws cannot co-exist with the Second Amendment,…”
Au contraire mon frère. I beg to differ. No other right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is restricted from the free exercise thereof by any law, other than the 2nd.
Be nice. He did not say anything about restrictions, he was talking about sensible gun laws. Like, you mustn’t shoot people without reason, costs of guns and ammunition should be tax deductible, you need to display a loaded gun at the polling place to be issued a ballot, you know, common sense gun laws.
Again with the arrogance that they get to define what is an ‘ordinary citizen.’
We need to hammer these people on the bigotry angle because using their words against them triggers their feels and that is how you get them to pay attention… hit them in their feels.
I wonder how many citizen types they think there are.
Only 2.
Them and Us.
You can apply whatever other colorful descriptions to the names but it boils down to Them and Us.
Has anyone ever noticed it’s a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Lefts?
The solution is simple- tell the antigunners you will apply some of Canada’s good gun laws. They will be very happy to hear that they will be getting sensible laws from their northern neighbors.
Just don’t tell them what laws. That way you can enjoy the look on their face when the crate of SVT-40s gets delivered straight to your door.
These people are so filled with horseshit, they don’t know fact from fantasy.
How many guns you can buy has no bearing on the violence they can cause — Dylan Roof had how many guns? How many did James Holmes use?
No one wants criminals to have guns. But they already have guns and always have — Chicago banned them, DC banned them and still had the highest violent crime (with and without guns) in the US.
Virginia’s violent crime rate is one of the LOWEST in the nation (200 per 100k) — even with the “lax” gun laws. Meanwhile, in next-door Maryland, the violent crime rate is twice (about 400 per 100k) that of Virginia and about 25% higher than the national rate (about 360 per 100k).
Why is the VIOLENT crime rate in Virginia so low with Virginia’s “lax” gun laws, but Maryland’s is one of the highest with its “strict” gun laws?
Don’t tell me Virginia guns are flowing into Maryland — if that is true, then why aren’t the same crimes happening in Virginia? Maybe its… the people?
See for yourself: http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/publicsafety/crime.php
(Direct link to the graphic: http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/images/graphs/PublicSafety/Crime-ViolentCrimeByState.png)
Lefty lib pigs just got to control peoples rights. Yep, the criminals and nut jobs will only steal one gun a month. Close the jails and prisons crime has ended.
“An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need…”
Good thing we’re all special snowflakes!
Now where’s my trophy gun?
Need is not the engine that drives our economy; want is.
Try that logic with a woman regarding shoes….
instead of arguing to curtail Virginians’ liberties, maybe the writer should argue that New Yorkers should enjoy the same liberties we have.
NY also hyper-regulates cigarettes and blames Virginia for our low-tax climate and their MASSIVE unregulated cigarette smuggling market.
one day maybe New Yorkers will learn the lesson of prohibition. maybe not. in the meantime, fuck them.
What sh!theads man! If you can legally buy one gun, you can legally buy 100 guns. And God bless you if you do.
Socialism and confiscation begins with establishing what the government determines your needs. Soviets used to patrol suppliers to make sure no one had more than another because who should need to have more inventory than your competition.
I’ve found that this “nobody needs/should have” attitude is as common with most European gun owners as it is with our antis, all rooted in the same stinking collectivism. The antis’ idea of a day at the range is bringing one rifle and 25 rounds, ’cause that’s all they believe anyone who owns a gun should have at one time, otherwise someone might pose a legitimate threat to their proggie utopia
by the same token no journalist (I use the term loosely) should be able to say somethjng stupid more than 12 times a year. Maybe the 1st amendment should be regulated!!!
You are not quoting things directly comparable. The equation with “saying something stupid” would be a law prohibiting buying more than 12 Hi Points or Glocks in a year. To compare with what he wants would be journalists cannot say anything *at all* more than 12 times a year, stupid or not. The expected response to such a proposal would be “don’t be ridiculous”, without daring to actually explore the comparison.
Simple answer. As many as I want.
How about we restrict your ability to write more than one word a month. Seems to me the liberal media is more dangerout than anything else in this country.
Dear Daily Press:
I believe in the First Amendment, but there needs to be reasonable, common sense limitations. How many editorials do you need to publish? I can’t see areason why you’d need more than 12 per year. Discuss.
Why shouldn’t we law abiding gun owners be able to buy 365 guns in a year? Again these anti gunners are the most paranoid animals on two feet. Let’s punish over a hundred million law abiding gun owners because of a few nutters. Let’s ban immigration and refugees from every country. If it saves just one American child it’s worth it.
Even in ILLinois I’m not limited by # of guns. I was surprised Virginia had 1 per month a few years ago. I wish I could AFFORD more than 1 a month?
Right? Most I’ve ever bought in a year was four, two of which were a Mosin and a Nagant revolver which were both less that a hundred bucks at the time.
Imagine this “gotta do sumthin”!!!!” approach in any field other than politics.
Poisoned water, collapsed buildings and mutilated patients everywhere with absolutely no consequences for the imbecile psychotics responsible.
As long they keep making them I’ll keep buying them.
We don’t need a lot of things. Freedom to worship and speech, freedom to eat what I want and go to the bathroom when I want, the ability to go outside, etc. I really really want to, but in the strict sense of needing to merely survive and metabolize, no I don’t need to. Of course I wouldn’t be a free human being then.
My answer is 87.
In reality, limiting gun purchases has never worked. Or any gun control ideas has not proven to work in the first place either.
“with absolutely no consequences for the imbecile psychotics responsible.”
Not really. Politicians and bureaucrats usually avoid any consequences. The rest of us not connected to those parasites… not so much.
What I want to know is – if guns need limits, serial numbers and reporting and all that… Why isn’t that true of knives, matches, screw drivers and so forth? When bare hands are the weapon of choice for much or most “domestic violence,” why aren’t hands registered, controlled and limited somehow?
The only logical conclusion is that the harm someone does or may do is secondary – at best. Control of the people generally, and specifically gun owners, is the real agenda. We’ve said that so very often. And trying to control what people in general “MIGHT” do using such control is seriously and demonstratively futile to that goal, even if the very best motives were present.
-How many guns do I need?
Just one, whichever one I am carrying right now
-How many guns do I want?
Well color me an “unordinary” citizen because I’d love to have the budget for 12 in a year
“An ordinary citizen… ” is a brilliant piece of sophistry, setting up the argument: “It doesn’t matter what we do to them, because they’re not ordinary, meaning right, meaning people we need to accommodate. They’re just weird.”
An ordinary citizen can do whatever they want. They decide, not the rest of us. (Have you seen these politicritters’ haircuts?) In a republic, that’s the point – governing ourselves to our own advantage (each in our own terms.) We restrict criminals – decidedly not “ordinary” citizens – so the rest of us have more space to do as we please. We restrict criminals – people who encroach on the rest of us, for fun – when that gets us more space for our weirdnesses.
There’s no accounting for taste, really. “An ordinary citizen…” buying 100 guns a year if they want to is a good thing because they want to. You don’t have to understand. It’s their prerogative because they like it. Why are you trying to make someone’s fun criminal?
So, Commisar Grundy, what, meaning “who” is next on your “Ban it because I don’t get it.” list?
So, ratb.ger than “Because it’s icky.”, to ban something you need to make this case (if it’s for us, not you as our expanse.)
– What problem does this solve?
– Why do you believe it will work?
– At what cost? To whom?
– At what burden to people who have harmed no one?
Otherwise, if you want to shave away at other people’s personal fun because it gives you jollies, tbe criminal is you.
There’s so much wrong with this editorial I hardly know where to begin. I guess the biggest problem is that they complain about the soiled reputation of Virginia, while it is the PRESS that is the most significant source of this bad reputation! And don’t even get me started on the deceptive context and misrepresentation of the term “well regulated!”
I need as many as I want, or can afford, nuff said.
What need does an ordinary citizen have for a full case of beer? Unless they drank 1 beer an hour and didn’t sleep, they would become legally intoxicated. Beer purchases should be limited to one six pack per day. Forms of highly concentrated alcohol beverages are dangerous and should be completely banned. If they are sold, they should be limited to an amount similar to the alcohol content of a beer six pack. So 6oz of 80 proof liquor per day.
Permits in addition to other state identification shall be required for alcohol sales on a may issue basis provided the applicant has passed a state approved course on responsible drinking and safe storage rules. The cost of the permit and course shall be set by the various regulatory agencies and/or licensing officials.
Should I go on?
The Daily Press again pushing the idea that guns are the problem and criminals and their activities don’t need to be addressed. More tyrant iron fist crap – Criminals are here to stay – so lets start banning stuff. Gun’s aren’t the problem. Ownership of guns isn’t the problem. The problem is people devoid of morals and ethics.
Uh huh…uh huh….we can do the 12 gun annual limit thing, or….just hear me out…..YOU CAN GO F&#% YOURSELF AND THE STATIST HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!!!!!
“An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need to buy more than 12 guns in a year,…”
I agree 100%. We shouldn’t need to by more than 12 guns a year. But in my state of MA where AR’s have been run out of town, and the mighty 10 round magazine is king, I need my 12, 24, 36, … firearms lined up like muskets of old. Blow out the ammo? Screw reload, grab that next ready firearm.
We should not NEED to buy more than 12 guns a year. Its a shame when we do …
There aren’t purchase limits here in Utah. Shame too. Just last week, 50 people in my town were arrested for murder and they all said that if they had only bought one gun instead of 12, they wouldn’t have committed murder. Instead, they’d have volunteered to help feed the homeless and would have finished their degree,!!
Oh the humanity! Thank God the level headed people at the Virginia Daily are on the case citing studies proving the effectiveness of the gun purchase limits and presenting such valid arguments
Load of crap. One time there was an auction lot I wanted, one special antique, a shooter-grade of the same and three Ivers or the like I didn’t care about but that didn’t affect the likely price much. I avoided that because I didn’t want to run afoul of some purchase limit or be accused of buying them to re-sell without an FFL or something.
“An ordinary citizen shouldn’t need to buy more than 12 guns in a year…”
Good thing I am an *extraordinary* citizen, then, and a patriot to boot!
Of the people who bought more than 12 guns in a year, nationwide, how many committed criminal acts with those guns? That is the ONLY question which should be considered, not touchy feely crap about what MIGHT happen. What HAS happened in the many, many experiences involved? Do they even offer any actual examples of why this is a bad idea, or just emotional hysteria and “save the children”?
A regular citizen ordinarily wouldn’t need to buy so many guns in one year, until the powers that be start saying we can’t….
Comments are closed.