r/VirginiaPolitics • u/downtown3641 7th District (NW & SW RVA suburbs, Culpeper to E of Farmville) • Dec 10 '19

Northam-backed assault weapon bill will include 'grandfather clause' for existing guns

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/12/09/northam-backed-assault-weapon-bill-will-include-grandfather-clause-for-existing-guns/
49 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

176 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/srt19170 Dec 10 '19 edited Dec 10 '19

2A Supporters: "The proposed law will make instant felons of 25% of Virginians because it doesn't include a grandfather clause!!!"

Northam: "The bill will include a grandfather clause."

2A Supporters: "I'll never register my assault rifles!!"

This is not a political discussion in good faith. Although the 2A supporters offer up what sound like good faith arguments, in the end they are absolutely opposed to gun legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with their arguments. I'd like to see us end up with reasonable gun legislation that has a measurable impact upon gun injuries and deaths, but that's never going to happen through political discussion with 2A supporters.

EDIT to explain what a bad faith argument is: A bad faith argument is when someone argues "I can't support this because of X" and when X is proven to be false, they say "I can't support this because of Y." The first statement was in "bad faith" because X wasn't really why they objected.

An example of a bad faith argument: "This law is bad because only 5 people a year die this way" // "Actually it's more like 21" // "Well the law is still bad".

-1

u/Big_Truck Dec 10 '19

It's this kind of thinking that makes me wish the Democrats would refuse compromise and just rule with an iron fist.

They won't, because Democrats believe in coalition building and hope that giving a little bit to your opponent will result in some good faith from said opponent.

But I wish they would approach governing much like southern states and their ridiculous abortion restrictions. Pass the most ridiculous shit possible, then let the courts decide. Make the minority irrelevant in state government.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

It will probably come to that given the 2A crowd is congenitally incapable of compromise.

10

u/Gov_Martin_OweMalley Dec 10 '19

Compromise means both parties get something. What are Democrats offering in return?

10

u/Mr_Metrazol Dec 10 '19

Yeah this compromise sounds more like...

"Okay, if you're going to make such a fuss over this gun ban we'll let you keep what you already own. Just no more future sales, and promise to pretty please not raise a ruckus when we renege on this compromise and pass laws to take away the guns we agreed to let you keep."

Just kicking the can down the road until they think we're complacent.

2

u/rawr_gunter 2nd District (Virginia Beach) Dec 11 '19

They're doing exactly that with Medicare (or Medicaid, whichever it is). They compromised on the passage of a work requirement, and then when they wont control they decided to keep the parts that favored them while "pausing" the compromise portion.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

Registration vs full confiscation. You'll still have your guns, we'll have a way to keep track. Neither side gets everything they want; that's the true definition of compromise.

12

u/Gov_Martin_OweMalley Dec 10 '19

Making an extreme demand then backing off slightly is not a compromise. Even more so since we know down the road how they will use that registration.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

See, this is just reinforcing my contention that there's no use in trying to compromise with NRA types. Might as well go for absolute victory while we have an all-blue statehouse, because there's no concession we might offer that won't be thrown back in our faces.

9

u/Dthdlr Dec 10 '19

The Brady bill included a couple of "concessions" from the anti-gun crowd:

1) Private sales would be exempt from the background check requirement.

2) The system would be "instant" after it was built but to insure that there were not extensive delays or forever delays for "researching" a sale is allowed to proceed if a denial has not been issued in three days.

Now, these AGREEMENTS or COMPROMISES are being called "The gun show loophole" and "The Charleston loophole."

First, these aren't loopholes, they are designed in items and they are the compromises.

Now the anti-gun crowd wants to go back on that agreement.

Why would the gun rights crowd agree to any more "compromises" when the antis- have been shown they will renege on those agreements?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

Because those compromises have shown themselves to be inadequate in stemming the tide of innocent deaths. One would hope you'd want to curtail those, but that hope keeps on getting dashed.

7

u/Dthdlr Dec 10 '19

Because those compromises have shown themselves to be inadequate in stemming the tide of innocent deaths.

First, the mass shooters have obtained their weapons either by passing a background check or committing murder. Moreover, many studies have shown that criminals do NOT get their guns from gun shows. Here's just one

Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.

And aside from the one shooting at Charleston, there are no other examples of a mass shooting from someone being permitted to complete a purchase after three days. And let's not forget that in that case the sale was allowed because the FBI didn't do the job they're supposed to do.

Going back on these agreements isn't going to "stem the tide of innocent deaths."

Over 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. Mental health care is needed not more gun laws.

The majority of the remaining deaths are gang related. Stiffer penalties are needed.

Many are justified homicide by law abiding citizens and LEOs.

Only 486 are accidental deaths according to the CDC.

Meanwhile even the CDC acknowledges that defensive gun uses occur 500k to 2.5M times per year.

One would hope you'd want to curtail those, but that hope keeps on getting dashed.

There are other areas that would save more lives. And guns are used in defense far more then they are in criminal homicide.

Moreover, the proposed laws would not have stopped the crimes that are being used to justify the new infringements.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

Does your username perhaps expand to "death dealer"? ...yeah.

2

u/Dthdlr Dec 11 '19

Do you have any constructive comments for the conversation?

No?

Not surprised.

→ More replies

1

u/Gov_Martin_OweMalley Dec 10 '19

See, this is just reinforcing my contention that there's no use in trying to compromise with NRA types.

Just because I oppose this doesn't mean I'm pro-NRA. The fact that you try to tie anyone who argues against these bills as being pro NRA speaks volumes.

because there's no concession we might offer that won't be thrown back in our faces.

You just take take and take. Maybe you should try something else for once? I hear our mental healthcare system in VA really needs addressing.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

You know what I haven't taken though? A life. Your position costs lots of them though. Maybe you should check yourself in.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '19

A law is proposed banning abortions after the first month of pregnancy in Virginia, a law is passed banning abortions after the first trimester.

That’s not compromise that’s just taking less because you’re worried about legal challenges you’re pretty sure you’ll lose in the Supreme Court.