RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe has rankled some Virginia Republicans by repeatedly calling for greater gun control after Wednesday’s deadly shootings in Southwest Virginia.
“Clearly that gentleman should not have owned a gun,” McAuliffe said of Vester L. Flanagan II, who killed a two-person news crew on live television early Wednesday. “That’s plain and simple. That was a tragedy. Now I have no idea if any new gun laws would have changed that, we don’t know, but my job as governor is to do everything I humanly possibly can do to make our communities safe.”
Several Republican legislators took to Twitter to blast McAuliffe for what one called his “shameless politicization of tragedy” — particularly because closing the gun show loophole, a gun control measure McAuliffe mentioned, wouldn’t have kept the gun out of Flanagan’s hands.
“I thought it was extremely unfortunate that while the family is still in shock at this news and while a manhunt is still actively underway, that the governor saw fit to try to advance his legislative agenda,” said Deputy House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah). “The even more unfortunate thing is that the agenda that the governor cited apparently has nothing to do with the facts of this tragic case. . . . If we’re going to try to fix problems that are the ills of our society, we should focus on things that are actually relevant to these tragedies.”
Flanagan legally purchased the Glock 9mm pistol used in the shootings from a federally licensed dealer in Virginia, said Thomas A. Faison, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Of course its political. What idiot thinks that tightening restrictions on crazies having guns isn’t political? how else is it going to happen if policy and laws aren’t changed?
What do people think a governor should do when a camera man and a reporter are executed on live TV? What is it he should say? Virginians want guns kept out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Now how are we going to accomplish this task? How else does change take place if not through the political process?
What screams out is the fact that these people DID buy their guns legally. The mental health community, the guns rights people and the legislators all need to get together and work out something fast that hinders the mentally ill from owning firearms. Too many Virginians are dying of senseless gun violence.
My ilk says enough is enough. Changes need to be made that allow responsible gun owners to have their weapons and at the same time prevent those with problems from access.
So far I have heard no solutions from the 2A-ers.
I am still waiting for a constitutional, non stigmitizing way to prevent guns from being in the hands of potentially, but heretofore law abiding, nutjob citizens. Many on this site should be concerned that depending on the political party in power that definition could be changed to apply to them. I heard one the other day that suggested that we make it illegal for illegals and other non-citizens among us to not have firearms, as a very high percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. MS13 comes to mind. Its a start and would have a much more stastically significant impact on gun crime. But then, that would not be politically correct would it – its easier to go after somebody else’s definition of a potentially dangerous nutjob, postal worker or not.
Gang members are thugs. Generally speaking, they are criminals, not nut jobs. That is a whole other issue.
I don’t believe illegal immigrants can legally possess firearms. In the first place, someone without proper documentation would expose him or herself during the background check. Why can’t legal residents have weapons? I don’t think citizenship is or should be a requirement.
You can have nutjobs who don’t have to be law abiding to be able legally purchase a gun. As long as their crimes are misdemeanors, they can buy a gun and be a nut job.
Where in the Constitution does it say that convicted felons, even after serving their time, cannot own a gun? That is pretty stigmatizing and is very legal to discriminate against them.
@Scout
The Nat’l Guard came from the militia, but it is not the militia. The Congress created the National Guard under the Dick Act. This allows the “militia” to be nationalized and used overseas.
The militia is a paramilitary organization, outside the standing army. The Nat’L Guard is part of the standing army now….effectively a second Army Reserve.
@Moon-howler
“I am sort of thinking that switchblades are “arms” as much as a Grenade launcher. Shouldn’t the 2nd amendment protect those also?”
I completely agree with the idea that they should be.
@Ed Myers
“Suicide attempts do not go down but the number of successful ones decreases,”
If this were true, suicide rates would decrease if guns were not available. Suicide rates do not change in that situation.
“Since gun owners can’t seem to keep the bullets under control”
Tell you what….convince society to disarm the cops and we’ll agree. Because your assertion is false. Cops shoot bystanders at a great rate than CCW people.
As for your ideas on ammo…..let me know when they repeal the laws of physics and build a Star Trek stunner.
@Moon-howler
A court case just ruled that illegal immigrants have 2nd amendment rights…..just like they have all the other rights. Legal residents have also been recognized to have these rights.
As for the felons…. until 1968, they would have their rights reactivated.
So obviously, we have no problem infringing on the rights of felons, post-imprisonment.
Most illegal immigrants would shy away from the process of obtaining a gun, unless of course there would be a way to not do a back ground check. Maybe they could find a private dealer…yea…that’s the ticket.
@Moon-howler
I think felons should get their rights back.
Private sellers are breaking the law if they sell a handgun to someone not a legal resident of the state. Out of state residents can buy long guns commercially, so I assume that goes for private sales also.
Since illegal aliens are not legal residents…..they may have a problem. And while one court says that they have the constitutional right to own guns….. other cases will have to decide the constitutionality of their purchasing rights. Perhaps they brought their own……they have a right to their property, I guess.
I don’t think all felons should have their rights back. I think those who behave should. I just think once time is served and a probationary period (not to be confused with real probation) has been served, then rights should be restored. That goes for all rights. I think you should be able to vote the day you get out of prison. Guns…a probationary period would be ok.
Those who haven’t turned their life around can get a gun the day they get out of prison.
What if I am a collector of say…antique guns and I want to buy an 1850 whatever from Johnny who lives in Dale City. Johnny is a private owner. I live in NJ. How does that happen?
@cargo
The rate of successful suicide is higher in states with more guns and in rural areas versus cities with gun restrictions. The Japanese success with suicide without guns is a cultural anomaly.
If gun owners could keep their bullets under control there would not be drive-by shootings where young kids get killed in the crossfire. I don’t restrict gun owners to just ccw, as you do.
I’m ok with disarming the cops. I think public safety would improve.
You need a few courses in fluid dynamics if you don’t think a bullet can be made to slow down and be inert after 20 yards. Imagine an umbrella that is shot out of a cannon. It goes far and is dangerous if sent forward. Not so when shot out backwards and the umbrella opens. Same weight, same lethality at short ranges, completely different at long ranges all because of differences in drag. Just physics. Not even science fiction.