Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

A short OP-ED by Ann Coulter. She seems to be taking a strange angle here, and I'm not sure I agree with her line about "disadvantage" due to unconcealability of large cap mags.

All I'm saying is that there are better arguments than that, and that her argument seems a bit foolish to me. What say you?

FOXNEWS.COM:
Fresh off of blaming Jared Loughner's killing spree in the Tucson mall on Sarah Palin, liberals are now blaming it on high-capacity magazines. They might as well imprison everyone named "Jared" to prevent a crime like this from ever happening again.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said: "I don't know of any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be hunting." It would have been more accurate for him to end that sentence after the word "hunter."

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulter/2 ... z1CrcCSJ25

Well, she used a comment made about hunting magazine capacities and tried to equate that somehow to concealability? Hmmm.

Best to run some thoughts by someone knowledgeable and trusted to get honest feedback before running it up the flagpole.

allingeneral wrote:During the presidential campaign, Obama said: "I don't know of any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be hunting." It would have been more accurate for him to end that sentence after the word "hunter."

Yes, but what about 19 rounds at 19 deer? Take the whole lot of them at once!

She actually tells another side of the story with a touch of humor thrown in to keep it interesting..

Decent article with teh exception of talking about things girls put in their hair rather than magazines.

A 31 round mag is def not concealable. Two guns are def. better than 1 for continuous fire or if one malfunctions. That is boilerplate self defense teaching.

What frosts me WAY more than Ms. Coulter's statement is Obama's statement that assumes that the only excuse for having a gun is to hunt deer. Someone should have pointed out to him that we have guns as a SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Deer (or any other kind of hunting) has NOTHING to do with it. Two days after the Arizona massacre, I went down to the gun store and, just out of curiosity, shoved a 33-round mag into a Glock 21. It stuck out of the gun handle by about a foot. To carry that into a public place would have been like carrying a carpenter's framing square. No way to conceal it. So she did have a point, I guess.

It strikes me that all this talk about "assault weapons" and high-capacity mags being outside the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Bill of Rights is pure BS. First, several of the founding fathers stated specifically that the reason the people should have the right to keep and bear arms was to insure that they would have the means to resist an unjust, oppressive government. Thomas Jefferson himself (who was not warrior) said that the tree of liberty needed to be fertilized from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots (or something pretty close to that. That’s pretty unequivocal, I’d say. By that logic, we should all be allowed to keep a "Ma-deuce" over the mantle and an RPG in the hall closet. Besides that, it occurs to me that the humble musket was the assault weapon of its day. It sacrificed the accuracy rifling afforded to achieve faster loading times and make them easier to make lots of them. They were the best way to achieve high rates of fire by a massed body against a massed body so as to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. On the other hand, our forefathers' rifled "squirrel rifles" took longer to load and had slower rates of fire, but had more range and were accurate at much greater distances. That often allowed the patriots to pick off officers at a distance from cover and played no small part in their ability to eventually (and barely) prevail against what was at the time the world’s best army. So in that sense, the armed citizenry at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived and adapted had arms that were SUPERIOR to those of the organized armies of the day. It's the same thing as Ms. Coulter's little faux paus; people who understand little of history and even less about firearms undertaking to decide what someone else ought to have. I’ll suggest another acronym for the forum glossary that applies to such people: MYOB. Stands for Mind Your Own Business.

dorminWS wrote:It strikes me that all this talk about "assault weapons" and high-capacity mags being outside the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Bill of Rights is pure BS. First, several of the founding fathers stated specifically that the reason the people should have the right to keep and bear arms was to insure that they would have the means to resist an unjust, oppressive government.

+1+1+1...+1

Indeed. The primary reason our Founders put in the 2nd is little different than the reason several countries have nuclear weapons...deterrents. As long as the government knows we have weapons they also know they can only go so far...and, most of us probably hope they never cross that line.

zephyp wrote:

dorminWS wrote:It strikes me that all this talk about "assault weapons" and high-capacity mags being outside the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Bill of Rights is pure BS. First, several of the founding fathers stated specifically that the reason the people should have the right to keep and bear arms was to insure that they would have the means to resist an unjust, oppressive government.

+1+1+1...+1

Indeed. The primary reason our Founders put in the 2nd is little different than the reason several countries have nuclear weapons...deterrents. As long as the government knows we have weapons they also know they can only go so far...and, most of us probably hope they never cross that line.

Count me in among those who hope that line never, ever gets crossed. That would be about the worst thing that could happen to our nation.

All this talk about hi-capacity magazines totally misses the point and draws the focus away from where it should be. MS. Coulter did nothing in her post to change that. She like most everyone else is a victim of the moment.

Here's my blame for this hi-capacity mag discussion, which is totally arbitrary phrase. Anyone knows that basic mag capacity has more to do with the caliber of the ammo, and the size of the gun's frame than anything else. I guess some people expect a company like Glock to make a magazine with some kind of blocks to fit the frame to restrict a mag that normally holds 13 rds to 10 rds.

Instead of calling people names, what every gun owner ought to be doing is showing their non-gun owning friends that mag capacity is a red herring. I showed my spouse how fast one can change magazines. That Lougher fumbled with changing his mags is irrelevant. You mean we will go through the process of legislating to make a law that only affects a shooter who didn't practice changing magazines, and who intends to shoot people in very close quarters? That makes no sense, it would be a feel good law that does nothing. Does anyone think that like a movie where a gunman suddenly opens fire that someone is counting the shots to be prepared to rush the guy when he gets to 10?

The Virginia Tech shooter actually practiced changing magazines, plus he carried more than one weapon. Major Hassan also carried more than one weapon, altho he only fired one. Several soldiers were in fact shot and killed when they rushed Hassan as he changed magazines. Neither of those shooters used so-called Hi Cap Mags. The Columbine shooters had more than one weapon as well. So focusing on mag cap makes no sense, unless you wanted to restrict it to one round.

The real question is: Why does anyone think it's a good idea for a law abiding citizen to approach elected officials at any level when armed? Lougher legally purchased that Glock, and he legally approached Representative Giffords to within normal speaking distance. As I understand AZ law, you may open or concealed carry, no permit required either way.

So for a moment IAW AZ law Lougher had broken no law as he stood fully armed in front of the Rep. He crossed that "law abiding citizen" line the instance his weapon cleared the holster, and the instance he pulled the trigger firing a bullet into Mrs. Gifford's head. At that point he was alleged to have attempted to assassinate an elected official.

If we don't allow this with the President, the Vice-President and Cabinet Officials, why allow it for any number of government officials. Remember the guy who shot at those school board members?

I recently applied for a concealed carry permit at the County Court House. They sure did not allow me to carry a weapon inside, and why should they?

If we are going to have a national discussion about sensible gun regulations which the SCOTUS has said is permissible, then it's our responsibility as gun owners to educate the non-gun owning public and officials about guns.

In doing so we should be honest and not engage in red herrings and straw men in the same way that non gun owners do.

This is my take
Gat6

gatlingun6 wrote:All this talk about hi-capacity magazines totally misses the point and draws the focus away from where it should be. MS. Coulter did nothing in her post to change that. She like most everyone else is a victim of the moment.

Here's my blame for this hi-capacity mag discussion, which is totally arbitrary phrase. Anyone knows that basic mag capacity has more to do with the caliber of the ammo, and the size of the gun's frame than anything else. I guess some people expect a company like Glock to make a magazine with some kind of blocks to fit the frame to restrict a mag that normally holds 13 rds to 10 rds.

Instead of calling people names, what every gun owner ought to be doing is showing their non-gun owning friends that mag capacity is a red herring. I showed my spouse how fast one can change magazines. That Lougher fumbled with changing his mags is irrelevant. You mean we will go through the process of legislating to make a law that only affects a shooter who didn't practice changing magazines, and who intends to shoot people in very close quarters? That makes no sense, it would be a feel good law that does nothing. Does anyone think that like a movie where a gunman suddenly opens fire that someone is counting the shots to be prepared to rush the guy when he gets to 10?

The Virginia Tech shooter actually practiced changing magazines, plus he carried more than one weapon. Major Hassan also carried more than one weapon, altho he only fired one. Several soldiers were in fact shot and killed when they rushed Hassan as he changed magazines. Neither of those shooters used so-called Hi Cap Mags. The Columbine shooters had more than one weapon as well. So focusing on mag cap makes no sense, unless you wanted to restrict it to one round.

So far, so good. I agree with you 100% here.

gatlingun6 wrote:The real question is: Why does anyone think it's a good idea for a law abiding citizen to approach elected officials at any level when armed? Lougher legally purchased that Glock, and he legally approached Representative Giffords to within normal speaking distance. As I understand AZ law, you may open or concealed carry, no permit required either way.

OK, now we're in disagreement, specifically with the premise of the question that you've posed. If it's not a good idea for a law abiding citizen to approach elected officials at any level when armed, the same should be true for anything *else* that could be used to kill. That would include cars. Automobiles are involved in the deaths of far more people every year than firearms are. Should we therefore ban automobiles in close proximity to elected officials by law-abiding citizens?

gatlingun6 wrote:So for a moment IAW AZ law Lougher had broken no law as he stood fully armed in front of the Rep. He crossed that "law abiding citizen" line the instance his weapon cleared the holster, and the instance he pulled the trigger firing a bullet into Mrs. Gifford's head. At that point he was alleged to have attempted to assassinate an elected official.

Exactly right. He became a lawbreaker at that point in time, just as you would become a lawbreaker at the exact moment you were to take your car and drive through a line of schoolchildren waiting at the bus stop.

gatlingun6 wrote:If we don't allow this with the President, the Vice-President and Cabinet Officials, why allow it for any number of government officials. Remember the guy who shot at those school board members?

Because I am not Loughner, and neither are you. His evil does not extend past him, and he should and will face justice.

Remember all the guys (and gals) who walk into the VA General Assembly during Lobby Day? I noticed a distinct lack of "halls running red with blood." Matter of fact, one very attractive young lady saw my "Guns Save Lives" VCDL button, came up to me, and started talking with me! Gotta say, that felt kinda good.

gatlingun6 wrote:I recently applied for a concealed carry permit at the County Court House. They sure did not allow me to carry a weapon inside, and why should they?

First, I congratulate you. You are going through the process like any other law-abiding citizen.

That determination was made because accused wrongdoers are regularly tried in a court house, as in they know they're going to jail if they get convicted. That's not the situation in most other venues in life, certainly not at a Town Hall or on the street.

gatlingun6 wrote:If we are going to have a national discussion about sensible gun regulations which the SCOTUS has said is permissible, then it's our responsibility as gun owners to educate the non-gun owning public and officials about guns.

In doing so we should be honest and not engage in red herrings and straw men in the same way that non gun owners do.

This is my take
Gat6

I agree, we should be honest and not engage in red herrings and straw men. However, limiting my Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms like you're proposing is both. Perhaps you can show me how it isn't?

And, as a nod to the title of this thread, I'm a Liberal saying this about guns.

- T

WOW! "Secure" areas like courthouses can be accomplished relatively easily. Ever given any thought to the logistics expended to make the President "secure"? Look at what airports go through to try to make themselves "secure". It may sound like a good idea to make all lawmakers secure, but it would be a physical impossibility. As far as I'm concerned, if an area cannot be made secure then there should be no restrictions on carry.

As for the high capacity magazines, I don't currently feel the need for them, but circumstances change.

@CowboyT +1

@WRW High capacity is a relative term. I think what you mean to say is that you don't have a need for what they are defining as high capacity today. Next go around "high capacity" could be any mag with a capacity greater than 5 or some other arbitrary number.

gunderwood wrote:@CowboyT +1

@WRW High capacity is a relative term. I think what you mean to say is that you don't have a need for what they are defining as high capacity today. Next go around "high capacity" could be any mag with a capacity greater than 5 or some other arbitrary number.

Yes, that was my intent. And yes, that has proven to be the case where arbitrary numbers have been assigned.

+1 more for CowboyT

@gatlingun6 -- good for your Jim... I'll stack my combat mag changes on 10 round "clips" against a 33 round mag any day. Mama taught me that high-cap mags have a tendency to jam and are hard to conceal. Never ever load em to full cap...

Welcome back...

One, Tuscon, itself, is also not to blame. Jared Is.
Two, Odrama is ultra-liberal and fears "no power" more than handguns. With Americans being well-informed about his non-American policies, it is easier to hate guns and a well-formed militia, individually or communally, than to be without power or show his ego as such.
Third, Ann Coulter is Conservative and 2nd Amendment, and anything not-liberal. She gets ratings- always! -by saying things laughably sarcastic. Even if she agreed with liberals, liberals themselves would take her comments as meaning nothing more than right-wing fodder. Thank the Lord, The 2nd Amendment doesn't bow down to the many except for each individual in his freedom and how it applies to a like-minded populace against the tyrant.

MCCW wrote:One, Tuscon, itself, is also not to blame. Jared Is.
Two, Odrama is ultra-liberal and fears "no power" more than handguns. With Americans being well-informed about his non-American policies, it is easier to hate guns and a well-formed militia, individually or communally, than to be without power or show his ego as such.
Third, Ann Coulter is Conservative and 2nd Amendment, and anything not-liberal. She gets ratings- always! -by saying things laughably sarcastic. Even if she agreed with liberals, liberals themselves would take her comments as meaning nothing more than right-wing fodder. Thank the Lord, The 2nd Amendment doesn't bow down to the many except for each individual in his freedom and how it applies to a like-minded populace against the tyrant.

************************************************************************
Actually I learned long ago to ignore Coulter she has nothing relevant to say. I will give her credit, she has found a way to not work for a living, and more power to her.

I think it's laughable and quite odd to say that any President fears handguns, or people with handguns. Why would he who has all that protection fear anyone? That's a ludicrous assertion. When is the last time that a man or men with guns have over thrown our government? Oh that's right, never! That's is unless you believe in conspiracy theories.

Gat6

CowboyT wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:All this talk about hi-capacity magazines totally misses the point and draws the focus away from where it should be. MS. Coulter did nothing in her post to change that. She like most everyone else is a victim of the moment.

Here's my blame for this hi-capacity mag discussion, which is totally arbitrary phrase. Anyone knows that basic mag capacity has more to do with the caliber of the ammo, and the size of the gun's frame than anything else. I guess some people expect a company like Glock to make a magazine with some kind of blocks to fit the frame to restrict a mag that normally holds 13 rds to 10 rds.

Instead of calling people names, what every gun owner ought to be doing is showing their non-gun owning friends that mag capacity is a red herring. I showed my spouse how fast one can change magazines. That Lougher fumbled with changing his mags is irrelevant. You mean we will go through the process of legislating to make a law that only affects a shooter who didn't practice changing magazines, and who intends to shoot people in very close quarters? That makes no sense, it would be a feel good law that does nothing. Does anyone think that like a movie where a gunman suddenly opens fire that someone is counting the shots to be prepared to rush the guy when he gets to 10?

The Virginia Tech shooter actually practiced changing magazines, plus he carried more than one weapon. Major Hassan also carried more than one weapon, altho he only fired one. Several soldiers were in fact shot and killed when they rushed Hassan as he changed magazines. Neither of those shooters used so-called Hi Cap Mags. The Columbine shooters had more than one weapon as well. So focusing on mag cap makes no sense, unless you wanted to restrict it to one round.

So far, so good. I agree with you 100% here.

gatlingun6 wrote:The real question is: Why does anyone think it's a good idea for a law abiding citizen to approach elected officials at any level when armed? Lougher legally purchased that Glock, and he legally approached Representative Giffords to within normal speaking distance. As I understand AZ law, you may open or concealed carry, no permit required either way.

OK, now we're in disagreement, specifically with the premise of the question that you've posed. If it's not a good idea for a law abiding citizen to approach elected officials at any level when armed, the same should be true for anything *else* that could be used to kill. That would include cars. Automobiles are involved in the deaths of far more people every year than firearms are. Should we therefore ban automobiles in close proximity to elected officials by law-abiding citizens?
************************************************************************************
Gat6 Replies:
This is an analogy that belies common sense. Besides most town hall meetings are conducted indoors, and political rallies that are held outdoors do usually erect nominal barriers to vehicle traffic. As I'm sure you know, Security prepares for the most likely threats, not every conceivable eventuality that could harm someone. The last town hall meeting I attended had a police presence, and I'm betting if I had walked in openly carrying I would have been checked. One comment from someone in the State House proves exactly nothing. My understanding is a CHP is required to carry at the state house, plus you may not carry a gun into the Senate Chambers. I noted that the press can no longer come to the front of the room as they used to, to place a tape recorder near the governor. Mmmm if they are so trusting, why that new rule that went into effect after the Gifford shooting? More importantly at the heart of your argument are several faulty assumptions about the 2nd Amendment. 1. That the amendment gave you some right; it didn't it only codified a natural right. 2. That it's an unfettered right, when it isn't. None of us have the right to carry a firearm when and where ever we want. 3. Until MacDonald V Chicago the 2nd A was not incorporated against the states, so it was state law that was preeminent unless it involved interstate commerce. It's this attitude that guns take precedence over any and everything in America that drives none gun owners to think that we are unbalanced. Now we can say who cares what they think, but that is a mistake. The 2nd Amendment was not handed down by God. It was written by men and can be changed by men. Less that 40% of households own guns. Most men do not own a hand gun. The mythological wild wild west recedes farther and farther into the background. Hollywood rarely makes a western movie. There are no new western TV series. Kids don't run around playing cowboys, outlaws and Indians. Most people no longer see anything heroic about the way we slaughtered native Americans. Here in VA, and elsewhere in the old South new immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and everywhere else are settling in. They don't give a damn about the old South, or Southern culture, or the Confederacy, or who started the Civil War, and what do you call it. They also tend to not own guns. I suggest anyone wanting to see where VA is going just take a look at school demographics in the early grades, you may be shocked by what you see. The constitution can be amended, plus a future SCOTUS could conclude that MacDonald V Chicago and Heller V D.C were wrongly decided. We had better remember the lesson of Plessy V Ferguson. Do you think the state of Louisiana and other Southern states thought the "separate but equal" ruling that justified racial segregation might be over turned by another SCOTUS in the not to distant future? I'm sure they did not foresee that 58 years later SCOTUS would strike down separate but equal. I say we had better take the long view.
***********************************************************************************

gatlingun6 wrote:So for a moment IAW AZ law Lougher had broken no law as he stood fully armed in front of the Rep. He crossed that "law abiding citizen" line the instance his weapon cleared the holster, and the instance he pulled the trigger firing a bullet into Mrs. Gifford's head. At that point he was alleged to have attempted to assassinate an elected official.

Exactly right. He became a lawbreaker at that point in time, just as you would become a lawbreaker at the exact moment you were to take your car and drive through a line of schoolchildren waiting at the bus stop.

gatlingun6 wrote:If we don't allow this with the President, the Vice-President and Cabinet Officials, why allow it for any number of government officials. Remember the guy who shot at those school board members?

Because I am not Loughner, and neither are you. His evil does not extend past him, and he should and will face justice.

Remember all the guys (and gals) who walk into the VA General Assembly during Lobby Day? I noticed a distinct lack of "halls running red with blood." Matter of fact, one very attractive young lady saw my "Guns Save Lives" VCDL button, came up to me, and started talking with me! Gotta say, that felt kinda good.
***********************************************************************************
Gat6 Replies:
My comment has nothing to do with Loughner, or his intent or the VCDL. It's commonsense. It doesn't matter that the halls did not run red with blood on lobby day. I suspect that other groups with a different agenda would not be looked on so kindly if they showed up at the state house fully armed.
********************************************************************************

gatlingun6 wrote:I recently applied for a concealed carry permit at the County Court House. They sure did not allow me to carry a weapon inside, and why should they?

First, I congratulate you. You are going through the process like any other law-abiding citizen.

That determination was made because accused wrongdoers are regularly tried in a court house, as in they know they're going to jail if they get convicted. That's not the situation in most other venues in life, certainly not at a Town Hall or on the street.
*********************************************************************************
Gat6 Replies:
[i]So you're taking away a citizen's 2nd A rights because he has been accused of even a misdemeanor, but was not incarcerated? Besides if I'm not on trial why can't I sit in a court room while armed? [/i]
*********************************************************************************

gatlingun6 wrote:If we are going to have a national discussion about sensible gun regulations which the SCOTUS has said is permissible, then it's our responsibility as gun owners to educate the non-gun owning public and officials about guns.

In doing so we should be honest and not engage in red herrings and straw men in the same way that non gun owners do.

This is my take
Gat6

I agree, we should be honest and not engage in red herrings and straw men. However, limiting my Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms like you're proposing is both. Perhaps you can show me how it isn't?

And, as a nod to the title of this thread, I'm a Liberal saying this about guns.

- T

**********************************************************************************
Gat6 Replies:
There isn't a single comment, or proposal I made that is unconstitutional. Show me any court ruling that says we have an unrestricted right to carry a fire arm where ever we like. If I have a constitutional right to carry in a state house, then surely as a law abiding citizen I have an equal right to carry in a court house, or any other public property. Of course the constitution did not grant that right.

Btw nice to see another liberal in the forum.

Gat6

@Gat6 - does a court have to rule on something in the Constitution so you can have an opinion to base your statements on? My Constitution is written in English and there is no press 1 or 2 button. It is easy to read and understand. You are welcome to make a copy if you cannot understand yours. You cant have my copy though. It was given to me by a WWII Navy fighter pilot, now dead, who laid it all on the line in the South Pacific a long time before things started getting screwed up...

zephyp wrote:@Gat6 - does a court have to rule on something in the Constitution so you can have an opinion to base your statements on? My Constitution is written in English and there is no press 1 or 2 button. It is easy to read and understand. You are welcome to make a copy if you cannot understand yours. You cant have my copy though. It was given to me by a WWII Navy fighter pilot, now dead, who laid it all on the line in the South Pacific a long time before things started getting screwed up...

The fact he was fighting in the South pacific would suggest to me things had already been screwed up. Methinks that started domestically with the battle of Ft Sumter and internationally with the entry of the AEF into WW1.

Kreutz wrote:Methinks that started domestically with the battle of Ft Sumter and internationally with the entry of the AEF into WW1.

The AEF? More like Cuba, or maybe Mexico. Though at least those adventures got us land, WWI just got us a bill.