Well, I don’t expect much from state legislators.
From Law Enforcement Today: Virginia officials: We’re enforcing new gun laws, like it or not. Police: Umm – who exactly is ‘we’?
From AP News: Virginia lawmaker wants to ban NRA’s shooting range
Virginia state legislator Dan Helmer wants to prohibit the NRA from having a shooting range inside its own headquarters.
There’s a buzz among police throughout the state, that they will not enforce certain new gun laws. On examination, the proposed laws cannot possibly pass Constitutional muster, no matter how zealous legislators and perhaps the governor may be about them.
These are not “common-sense gun laws.”
I posted on FaceBook: “If Virginia did, in fact, elect all these loony lefties, then Right-thinking people need to ask themselves why.”
In question is the swing vote, those who aren’t unpersuadably committed to the right or to the left, but can be persuaded to change their vote from one election to the next. Virginia used to be staunchly conservative. What persuaded so many voters this time to go left — and not just left, but FAR left? This is Beto left. Some of these people want a gun grab.
We may never know or understand the answer. I certainly don’t.
Similarly, 10% of those who voted for Obama in 2012, voted for Trump in 2016. This was enough to swing the election, and is just about the number I’d anticipate in light of what I said about the white vote in “Appeals.” This does not explain the personality cult — I’m not the only one using that term. — that’s possessed so much of his “base,” who seem to hold him incapable of wrong.
Similarly, in January 2015, a shift occurred in the mentality of a swing vote of Baltimore’s criminal population. Many people who believed murder was unacceptable before, suddenly decided that it’s a good idea. People did not become criminals who weren’t criminals before; these folks were criminal already. They just became more murderous.
I don’t know anyone who understands this.
There were five murders the weekend of January 11-12.
The William Tell Show is to be all about conversations — between folk who are pro-gun, folk who are anti-gun, and the swing voters in between; those who oppose Trump, those who love Trump, and those open to persuasion; those who oppose crime, those who endorse crime, and those who wonder what to think. To keep the conversation going, it is essential to avoid anything that would end someone’s willingness to participate. That’s what Free Speech Handbook is all about. The goal is not to win, but to understand.
The Homeless Blogger 
Why does it have to be pro-gun anti-gun? What about just plain old common sense?
Fanatics on either side don’t like common sense.
And who are the fanatics on the pro-gun side? The vast majority of gun owners support all kinds of restrictions on firearms ownership such as bans on straw purchases and felons purchasing weapons. We favor background checks and restrictions on minors and the mentally handicapped. We strongly favor the strict enforcement of firearms laws including the illegal trafficking of weapons.
The so-called “common sense” law proposed by the Left is a ruse for gun confiscation. We know it’s a ruse because the so-called common-sense legislation will do nothing to prevent the kinds of murders which prompt the “solution.” For example, the current rush to ban “assault rifles” has already been tried and shown to be ineffectual. Moreover, with respect to mass shootings, the Washington Post showed that the weapon of choice for mass shooters is the 9mm. Liberals scream about assault rifles, and if they get their way, thugs will continue to shoot up places with their 9mms. The Left will then scream that since we’ve banned a kind of weapon which is used far less in mass shootings, “common sense” dictates that we go after the weapon that is most often used. Hence, handgun bans. The “assault rifle” ban is just a step toward a greater firearms ban.
What’s being proposed in Virginia is a gun grab.
That is not “common sense.” It should not be confused with common sense.
The fanatics may be defined as those who assume every proposed law does spell a gun grab; those who live with a wildly exaggerated fear for their own safety; those who insist on an unlimited number of assault rifles because they WANT civil war.
This may help: Guns in black and white
I’m not following your chain of reasoning (and I read your link). It’s nobody’s business how many weapons a law-abiding citizen owns, and the Second Amendment was crafted precisely as a check to federal tyranny. You may want to read my column Pandora and Her Gun Control for greater elaboration.
I’ll return to your comment tomorrow.
As an aside, I should be concerned about this guy’s rights?
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/one-person-in-custody-after-police-activity-in-street-harford-county/30617872
No.
I read your post. That was the first real exposition I’ve met of the meaning of “militia” in the 2A.
The point of my post “Strange shifts” is to UNDERSTAND shifts in opinion as to gun control, crime, or anything else; to get and keep people TALKING WITH each other across those opinion-divides, as opposed to TALKING ABOUT each other, which is what happens too much now. That’s a basic goal of The William Tell Show.
The article I linked to in previous comment — the guy who, first, shot and killed the family dog, and then fired ~200 rounds at law enforcement when they arrived — How many guns should HE be allowed to have? Subsequent news coverage stated that this man — clearly unfit to possess any gun at all — had had protective orders taken out against him by neighbors and kin, and in fact had had his guns taken away for some time under a Red Flag statute.
There is room for negotiation and compromise. As to whether a person’s gun possession rights should be COMPLETELY unfettered, I rest my case. I’ve already said that the proposed Virginia laws — I oppose them.
I agree that there is room for dialog, and recall that my defense of a person’s right to own as many weapons as he or she chooses is qualified by the fact that s/he is a law-abiding citizen. A mentally unstable person should not be allowed to legally own weapons.
As to an allegation that a person is unstable, you cannot deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law (U.S. Constitution). If you want h/er guns, s/he must be given due process. We can’t take away a person’s rights merely because s/he stands accused without a conviction. That’s why gun-rights supporters oppose that kind of approach. It is fertile ground for governmental abuse.
As to Virginia, the northern part of the state has seen a significant population increase, and urban voters are traditionally Democratic.