It’s an understatement to say that West Virginians take gun ownership seriously.
Surveys have shown how that more than half of all West Virginians have guns in or around their homes. In one survey from a few years ago, only Alaska and Wyoming had higher rates of gun ownership.
And West Virginians made it clear in a 1986 addition to the state Constitution what they believe the Second Amendment means: “A person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state and for lawful hunting and recreational use,” reads Article three, Section 22.
That Constitutional Amendment passed by a five to one margin (342,963 to 67,168).
The wording of the amendment is interesting. It lists personal defense ahead of hunting. In West Virginia, owning a gun it not just about shooting a deer or a squirrel; that’s a given.
No, here gun ownership is deeply ingrained in a culture where individuality and personal freedom combine with a wariness of authority. Additionally, as a rural state, families have frequently had to depend more on themselves and their neighbors than a rapid police response to a real or perceived threat.
Owning a gun is as natural here as having a lock on your door.
West Virginia is a conservative state. A recent survey by Harper Polling found that 60 percent of West Virginians questioned identify themselves as either very conservative or somewhat conservative.
And so when President Obama and a liberal Senator from California—Diane Feinstein—propose outlawing certain kinds of guns, it’s predictable that many West Virginians would react with anger, resentment and even fear.
West Virginia’s Congressional delegation has, for the most part, picked up on that vibe.
“My phone is on fire,” 2nd District Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito told me on Talkline Monday, alluding to the overwhelming feedback from constituents who are worried about their SecondAmendment rights.
Capito, fellow Republican Congressman David McKinley from the 1st District and 3rd District Democrat Nick Rahall are all against an assault weapons ban. Additionally, none of the three sound like they are interested in expanding the current background check system.
On the Senate side, Joe Manchin also stands opposed to an assault weapons ban, but he supports legislation establishing universal background checks with some exemptions for family members to transfer guns.
Only long-time Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller supports significantly tighter gun laws. In fact, Rockefeller is a co-sponsor for the Feinstein bill.
Rockefeller, who voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994 that expired in 2004, says he respects the rights of hunters and the Second Amendment, but he sees assault weapons differently.
“Most hunters I talk with know that prohibiting the use of military-grade weapons or clips that can fire dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds will not impact those traditions, nor do they have a place on our streets,” Rockefeller said after the Sandy Hook massacre.
Rockefeller is not running for re-election in 2014, so he has the luxury of ignoring the political consequences of a position that’s counter to a large segment of his constituency. Those politicians who are going to be on the ballot next year, however, need to pay closer attention to what voters are telling them.
86
Comments
tony
hopefully our children will look back at this debate and think "what were these people thinking?". you can never start a real debate when the nuts start out by saying the gun folks want to take my hunting rifle away". the fact is that no-one is.
no-one has said that ANYWHERE that ive seen .
then why are you allowed to say that on tv and your show at all? i hear it non-stop. its disturbing to me that these folks seem not to know its a lie. do me a favor..try to foster real discussion and stop your callers when they start the whole paranoid gun trip. lets deal with reality. theres too many people walking around watching news that promotes this alternate angry white man isolationist reality. you need to stop promoting it and the whole dumb culture on your show. for too long people on the right wing have been satisfied they are getting the vote while willfully ignoring the fact their base is either woefully educated, poorly culturally underexposed or basing their vote on principles of hatred.
go ahead and let people say on your show that more guns makes us safer. every possible statitistical or scientific study/analysis renders that notion not only wrong but laughable. yet, you let em say this craziness every other day on your program without challenge. where are you coming from?
February 6, 2013 at 4:49 am | Report comment
Dan
Tony
You are a complete moron and don't know the first thing about anything that you are talking about
An armed society is a polite society and more guns in the hands of trained private citizens is a deterrent to criminals
THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON FOR NOTHING !!!
February 6, 2013 at 8:15 am | Report comment
scott strode
good idea, but the majority of crimes are not being committed by "criminals", its people with mental health issues. and people with mental health issues really don't give a hoot if everyone is armed or not.
February 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Report comment
Rick P. from Lewisburg
I don't disagree with what you said, BUT the assumption you make is that people take classes. Most do not. If all NEW owners were required to take a safe handling class, there would be some meat in your statement.
Secondly, please watch the double negatives.
February 6, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Report comment
Anonymous
Yeah, less guns equals less crime according to your scientific study you just made up.... FACT Chicago and DC have the toughest gun control laws in the nation. FACT They also have the highest Gun murder rates in the nation. FACT there were only 323 deaths last year involving rifles of any type and that includes suicides and death at the hands of law enforcement deaths by hammers, ball bats and other blunt objects was 10 times that. So get down off your liberal high horse and present facts before you spew your rhetoric for all to see.
February 6, 2013 at 9:12 am | Report comment
mntnman
Fact -- neither Chicago or DC are in a vaccum. Guns come in from surrounding areas into those areas. Your argument is weak. Fact -- we own the most guns in the world and BY FAR we have the most violent deaths and most gun deaths. Not saying we should ban anything, just saying your argument is WEAK.
February 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Report comment
T
Uhm, Why should it matter if the guns comes from the surrounding areas? They are illegal right?...How in the world is it possible for the bad guys to bring weapons into cities where it's a "gun free zone"...It's illegal to do?...And, if we made the US like that how in the world could anyone ever bring weapons from Mexico or anywhere else?...Are you people really this dense? The criminal is called a criminal for a reason, the will not obey a single new law that is passed...The reason they call it "gun control" is because it only "control" you and me and the Government isn't suppose to be in that authority and never was....We control them, not vis-versa, read the US history for once, will yea!
February 11, 2013 at 11:29 pm | Report comment
T
Better yet I'll do it for yea.....
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good..- George Washington First President of the United States
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
And yes, they had musket in those days, but so didn't the Government that was formed...To think the People of today should have at least the minimum of "SPORTING RIFLE" to preserve the thought of "tyranny" from a power hungry government that is losing it's mind right now is very foolish!
February 11, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
Mountaineer
When the statistics are broken down per capita, with the exception of D.C., more blue states have less death by firearms than more red states. D.C. is the highest, but followed by Alaska, Louisiana, and Wyoming to name a few. In 2002, West Virginia had the 12th highest firearm deaths per capita. Whereas, Illinois was 31st. The lowest five included NY, NJ, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. These stats are dated, but they still help explain why one size doesn't fit all. It is hard to know what policy or lack of policy is helping or harming an area. Regulations and murders can't be the only factors considered. Tons of factors manipulate outcomes. For example domestic violence programs, mental health awareness, substance abuse rates, population, population density, average age of population, etc. will impact each study. Chicago has very large population so it will more likely have a hire murder rate than a small city. One can't assume it has a hire murder rate because of its gun control laws. Likewise, West Virginia has a pretty high death by firearm rate. However, that still doesn't mean the lack of gun regulations is causing the higher rate. Long story short, no one gun policy or lack of gun policy will be effective in all areas, and laws have to be revisited/repealed/updated as populations change.
March 15, 2013 at 1:57 am | Report comment
Teufel
What statistical data are you refering to?
February 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Report comment
TD
make up your mind Hoppy, you've flipped and flopped on this issue more than Manchin, what happened? did you get the directive from the NRA to write this column? Comes down to this, universal background checks will pass, assault weapons ban will not, hopefully we'll get a limit on number of bullets in a clip.
Last year in the entire country guns were used (someone shot and killed someone) less than 250 times in self defense, that's not counting police. On the other hand more than 30,000 people were murdeed by guns and over 100,000 were shot. Seems like the self defense side is losing badly.
Not to worry, the Republican party will follow their big backers and the most extreme elements, the NRA, and fight sensible limits every step of the way.
February 6, 2013 at 6:41 am | Report comment
TAZ
Please supply source for you statistics.
February 6, 2013 at 7:04 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
TD,
Your statistics cannot be accurate as there is no reporting requirement when an armed citizen defends him or herself without a shot.
You need to learn to start thinking for yourself and stop spewing what you read on left wing blogs and "news sources".
February 6, 2013 at 7:31 am | Report comment
Don
TD, If you are going to incorporate statistics into your diatribe they must be accurate and verifiable. Your stats are neither and to go a step further your stats are insane. Secondly, the NRA does support tougher background checks to include mental health info being reported, they also have said the "gun show loophole" needs to be closed. These seem like sensible avenues to pursue to me. However writing and passing legislation that takes away my right to own a particular weapon or how many rounds I can load into to a magazine are idiotic and unecessary. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
February 6, 2013 at 11:32 am | Report comment
hillbilly
TD,
Do you think that if every gun was outlawed in the US, that people would give up their guns? Do you think that would stop guns from being smuggled in? Do you think if every gun was outlawed in this country that murders via gun would stop? I don't think so to any of those questions. Murder is illegal now, do killers abide by that law? What would you propose doing if guns were outlawed and murders using guns continued? Just saying...
February 6, 2013 at 11:32 am | Report comment
DonaldH
TD, you sound like a good democrat, bolshevic in lock-step with Karl Marx,,, why don't you explain to us all just why you really don't want any of us to own a gun that may hold more than 1-5 rounds at a time.. Tell ME,, not not some deranged soul in sandy hook,,,, why you want the authority to be able to dictate TO ME what kind of gun I can own..
February 22, 2013 at 6:44 am | Report comment
ShinnstonGuy
The sad part about his gun debate is that very few--VERY FEW and pretty much NO ONE on this MB--will even consider a compromise. I just bought my first gun for self-defense and I found the background check to be a joke. Yet there are people out there vehemently against these background checks. If you can't honestly answer a question about whether you have committed a felony or been diagnoses with a mental illness, then you have more issues than a gun will fix.
I realilze many people on here have probably never lived in a large-size urban area. Perhaps if they did they might understand the viewpoint from those that live there. The same can be said of people that live in the city; if they spent time in WV they would understand our point of view as well. Until we learn how to be open-minded and not one dimensional we will fail. And we will fail not just with the debate over guns, we will fail on everything.
For my part I concede that I don't need a semi-automatic weapon. I already shot everything the military has available and I believe those weapons are best needed to shoot the Taliban. There is my give-and-take. What's yours?
February 6, 2013 at 6:54 am | Report comment
TAZ
The "fear" of the background checks as proposed is that it can very easily lead to confiscation (clearly what the Constitution, if we would adhere to it as easily as swear to uphold it, seeks to protect). If one is naive enough to think this cannot happen, then debating the issue any further with that individual is a waste of time.
February 6, 2013 at 7:10 am | Report comment
ShinnstonGuy
The fear of the future is what continuously holds West Virginia back. If you put a law into place and it doesn't work, simply repeal it. If we feared every change we would've never made it to America, would've never won WWII, and would've never made it to outer space.
February 7, 2013 at 6:52 am | Report comment
DonaldH
Well, instead of "putting a law into place" and then "repeal it" if it doesn't work how about you guys get the 2nd repealed before debating any change...
February 22, 2013 at 7:04 am | Report comment
DonaldH
And Shinston proved your point-- debate with them is a waste of time...
February 22, 2013 at 7:01 am | Report comment
DonaldH
In my case the fear of confiscation isn't the only problem-- it's the liberal M.O. of "we must first pass the bill to find out what is in it"--- No ONE lies to the public like a liberal democrat.. NO ONE!!
February 22, 2013 at 7:09 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
I do understand the rural urban divide on this issue but my rights whether freedom of speech or self defense are not subject to compromise! Fortunately it looks like we can stop this overreach.
I imagine you realize that there is a natural evolution from military arms to civilian hunting weapons. The most popular use for surplus 1903s, 1903a3s, and Marsers, yes WW1 bolt action assault weapons, was to modify them for deer hunting.
February 6, 2013 at 7:46 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Correction Mausers not Marsers!
February 6, 2013 at 7:48 am | Report comment
ShinnstonGuy
Freedom of speech has been legally curtailed. Remember the porn case in which the court said, "I know it when I see it." You can't just put up a billboard with a naked person on it. Based on the simple questions on the background check form, if you are unwilling to complete it then you must have something to hide.
February 7, 2013 at 6:53 am | Report comment
DonaldH
Shinston, please stop it—you’re confusing imagery and speech and most likely you are confusing the two on purpose. No, you can’t put a naked picture of yourself on public display but you certainly can say “I like to be naked” on a billboard, now can’t you..
And obviously there a few parts of the Constitution you must approve of—If you don’t answer personal questions about yourself then “you must have something to hide”? WoW!! You not only have problems with the 2nd but you seemingly have problems with the 5th, as well. So Shinston, tell us here, what your real name and address is,, that is, unless you have something to hide.
February 22, 2013 at 7:39 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
You're absolutely correct, ShinnstonGuy. Like so many political issues in this nation (or state for that matter), most people seem to be at either one end or the other of two political 'extreme' positions. On gun control, we have those who are for STRICT gun control and those for NO gun regulation at all. Few folks are willing to take the 'middle ground' here, like what happened with Joe Manchin when he attempted to do so.
As long as the two 'sides' continue to stare at each other and growl instead of coming together like reasonable human beings to work out a compromise, there will be no solution. The sad thing is, politically, I believe the leadership of the Dems and GOP in their hearts WANT the 'divide' to continue. It keeps money flowing into their coffers. Naturally, the anti-gun crowd give heavily to the Democrats while the NRA/pro-gun folks keep sending their money to the GOP. So in that sense of the word, a 'divided America' makes BIG money for the two major political parties.
Maybe THAT'S why we'll never see a compromise in Congress on this issue. Like the reason that WVU went to the Big 12, it's all about the 'Benjamins!'
February 6, 2013 at 8:27 am | Report comment
GregG
CaptainQ, once again I will have to agree with you 100%!! Everything in this country is about the "Benjamins". And that is the very reason this country is going to hell in a handbasket. Of course the republicans will want to cut the wages and benefits of the labor that makes the baskets. And the democrats will demand decals warning that the basket should not be used as a parachute.
February 6, 2013 at 9:14 am | Report comment
Shadow
What is it about "Shall not be infringed" that you don't understand?"
February 6, 2013 at 10:29 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
Thank you for proving my point.
February 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Report comment
Patchy
Here we go again. A semi-automatic weapon simply means that a second round is chambered automatically once the first has been fired. It doesn't mean machine gun, Uzi, AK-47, M-16 or a so-called assault weapon. Glock pistols are semi-automatic. In fact, any pistol that isn't a revolver is semi-automatic.
Now...are you claiming that we should all return to the Wild West days of six-shooters or are you misinterpreting and/or misapplying the term semi-automatic despite your military experience?
February 6, 2013 at 10:05 am | Report comment
Shadow
If you put your name and address plus the S/N of the weapon on the form that was enough for registration and the potential for a try at confiscation later. The sad fact is that there is no prosecution for those that fail the background investigation. They committed perjury when they signed the form.. Therefore, it must be for building a Registration Database. The Background Check only makes the anti-gunners have a feel-good attitude that they are making the World safer. They ignore the real problem, Mental Health. None of the sane people I know have killed anyone.
February 6, 2013 at 10:25 am | Report comment
DonaldH
Good try Shinston-- but I'm not so sure you've shot anything in the military-- Or are you just trying to confuse the issue on purpose? I'd rather "shoot the Taliban" with my automatic military weapon than with my SEMI-automatic deer rifle.. And my double action revolver is but a "semi-automatic" too -- it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.. As long as the dishonest gun grabbers have a say in the debate-- then there will be NO compromise..
February 22, 2013 at 6:58 am | Report comment
Matt
Zero gun ban period, Feinstein is a joke and so is anyone who believes her point of view. Get a clue leftists, we will always be armed no matter the (laws). You call it white man isolationism, I call it freedom. Now you've heard the rest of the story. Thanks for listening, your smarter for it.
February 6, 2013 at 7:28 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
You're welcome, although I don't feel smarter. Maybe it's because I read rather than listened. Actually it's called OLD white man isolationism. Fortunately for young people, time and attrition will solve the problem. Those of us who are both old and sane are just out of luck.
February 6, 2013 at 7:48 am | Report comment
Anonymous
My thoughts exactly Matt.
February 6, 2013 at 9:16 am | Report comment
wirerowe
Hoppy I agree with TD that there are not enough votes in Congress for a ban on assault weapons, the ban on multiple bullet magazines could pass but probably not and epanded background checks will pass unless this is a significant move to universal registration. Because of the timing after the recent tragedy, this will be a political loss for President Obama but he had no choice but to try. I hopethat the congress will let the sequester kick in and we will have meaningful spending cuts. This would be a political loss for the President and a win for the Republicans if they don't gloat.
February 6, 2013 at 7:36 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
wireowe: Maybe it's the coffee kicking in but your posting actually made sense to me this morning, at least the part on gun legislation. But you left me unfulfilled on your sequester analysis. I understand that your priority is to deliver poltical losses to the President rather than to do what is best for the country and the economy. But how does allowing these across-the-board cuts, 50% defense-related, just hurt the President? Is it because they will send us back into recession and that somehow will benefit the Republicans? What else should we hope for? Maybe a national disaster?
February 6, 2013 at 8:01 am | Report comment
wirerowe
Hops I think they hurt the President politically because he asked for tax increases and the republicans went along. I think the next step is cuts. I think that the Presdient is opposed to cuts and if the sequester goes forward he loses.IMHO. I respect and agree somewhat withyour concern about the economic slowdown but again in my opinion the greater risk is to continue to kick the can down the road on deficits and ignore closing the actuarial hole in medicare and medicaid.
February 6, 2013 at 10:36 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Hmmm...
I didn't realize that when big government threatens to take constitutionally guaranteed rights away it could be a partisan Issue.
February 6, 2013 at 9:44 am | Report comment
Sampeer
Tony, you obviously haven't been following this weapon ban issue have you. San Diego police chief William Lansdowne stated recently that he supported the Fienstien/Obama assault weapon ban. He went on to say that the American public could be disarmed in a generation. Don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
The fact of the matter is, Tony, disarmament is exactly what many of our leaders, both republican and democrat, on both the state and federal level want. to accomplish this however, theya re taking the frog in the boiling water approach. By doing it one peice at a time they can disarm the nation without much contraversy. First, it is fully automatic weapons, then military style assault weapons and large capasity clips, then sporting semi-automatic weapons, then shot guns, then high power bolt action weapons, and finally all weapons. All in the name of public safety.
Call me a conspiracy theorist is you want or a gun nut, but I work for the government and I know what I talking about here. If you choose to put your trust in government, ie those in office, you are a fool. Having worked for the government for over 30 years, I have yet to meet the first politician, republican, democrat, independent, libertarian who had your best interests at heart. The only interest they have is obtaining power and retaining it, no matter what.
I want to remind you we have a power mad president and congress lacking the courage to control him. In fact, most of congress is in bed with him. I further want to remind you this president has declared himself judge, jury, and executioner, with regard to the war on terror. I refer to the issue of drones. The only thing that is standing between him and congress using drones to root out and eliminate their enemies on US soil is an armed public.
Lastly, a wise man once said those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. I pose this question to you, would Hitler and the Nazi party have butchered 6 million Jews along with another 6 or 7 million so called undesirables if they had been armed. Would Statin have butchered 20 million "undesireables" if the Russian public had been armed?
February 6, 2013 at 7:54 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Sam,
I have had all too much similar experience with government and politicians and can only say you are spot on as usual.
Nothing is more detestable than a career politician and you should trust them at your peril.
For those partisans reading this please note I have purposefully made no reference to political party. They are ALL alike!
February 6, 2013 at 9:52 am | Report comment
TD
Sampeer, a SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, figures doesn't it?
Enjoy the pension and benefits you are so determined nobody else gets.
February 6, 2013 at 10:37 am | Report comment
Jim N Charleston
I didn't read Skippy's latest. Of course I never do. I did read the headline so I'm gonna wing it.
Guns rule. Like it or not, they rule. They are what allow us to tell all political leaders to "Suck my Glock."
But more than just that:
When your gf/wife leaves you for your best friend or you find out your wife is actually a switch hitter and her best friend is REALLY her bff, your gun is still there.
When you're walking on the side of the road cause your 10+ year old 4x4 pickup failed ya again just after the local BEST fix all mechanic failed 1 more time to get it fixed and the cell phone has no service, your gun is still there.
When you're going through the dark parking garage at closing time and you hear the footsteps behind you, you gun is still there.
When you're visiting the Amish Country from PA to OH & ya spot Lebanon Levi of the Amish Mafia and he's giving ya the thousand yd stare, your gun is still there.
When the girl you pick up at the bar is actually married and you don't find out until her husband marches in & says "Honey I'm home", your gun is still there.
When you're hiking the Blue Ridge Mountain Trail in NC & you stumble upon a moonshiner, your gun is still there.
When the girl you pick up (while under the influence) wasn't actually born that way, your gun is still there.
And when mans best friend chews up your newspaper or slippers and you find out 1st thing in the morning, your gun is still there.
God made man. Sam Colt made us equal. Glock gave a chosen few a decisive advantage.
February 6, 2013 at 8:12 am | Report comment
Jim N Charleston
I might also add when Gale Catlett's teams blew 20 pt leads with 4 min or less left to play (see vs UMass & vs Georgethave), your gun was still there (your TV probably wasn't or it could have had a hole in it).
Same could be said for Don's boys in 89 vs Pitt & 96 vs Miami.
February 6, 2013 at 8:22 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Wow. And here I thought it was liberal propaganda that portrayed some men as having a "special relationship" with their gun. Just make sure you use protection when you interact with your special one. We'd hate to learn of any unplanned penetrations.
February 6, 2013 at 8:27 am | Report comment
GregG
And when the classroom walls are covered with the bone fragments and brain matter of our children, your gun will still be there. Right Jim? And just for the record, I DO NOT SUPPORT gun control. Not because I "feel" it's my 2a right to own an assult type weapon or a 30 round clip, the reason I'm against gun control is simply due to the fact that I have enough common sense to know that these types of guns and accessories cannot be "taken of the streets". Personally, I feel it would be a better idea to tax the hell out of these types of guns and accessories. Tax the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the purchaser. Then place every penny of this money into providing mental healthcare and securing are schools. The mass run to purchase these types of guns and accessories since the Newtown tragedy clearly proves that many people place more value on a gun than the lives of others. If people feel they need a house full of AK's and 30 round clips, fine with me. But by damn your going to subsidize school security and mental healthcare.
February 6, 2013 at 8:48 am | Report comment
Anonymous
I couldn't agree more with your statement. BTW still laughing over the Lebanon Levi and the Amish mafia bit.
February 6, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report comment
smokey
Hoppy,
Never mind that a gun in the home is twenty two times more likely to cause injury to the owner than to an intruder. If you feel you need a gun for protection, you have that right. However, none of our constitutional rights - speech, privacy, right to bear arms - are absolute. All are subject to reasonable restrictions. How much firepower does one need. Is the limit an assault rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, tank? At some point, hiding behind the second amendment does not make sense. Gun rights advocates argue that the problem is guns in the hands of mentally ill people. Then these same advocates argue against background checks. What am I missing here? And please don't start with that tired "slippery slope" argument. Another suggestion is armed guards in school. Although that did not work in one mass shooting, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that works and we never have another school shooting. That would be wonderful but that would only leave shopping centers, churches, theatres and pretty much every place else. The only answer is common sense restrictions on firearms. Before everybody says that would not work, look to Australia who banned assault rifles and did not have a mass shooting for sixteen years. We're lucky to go sixteen weeks in the US. Beside, we don't repeal traffic laws, DUI laws, and other laws because somebody might not obey them. I know I am in the minority in West Virginia on this issue. I agree with Senator Rockefeller and disagree with Representaive McKinley who said gun control is "good politics but bad policy." I would say it is good policy but bad politics. Like Senator Rockefeller, it is a good thing I am not running for office. Have a great day.
February 6, 2013 at 8:31 am | Report comment
Patchy
Quoting an easily-debunked statistic to start your post doesn't inspire confidence in the remainder of it. You compound the error with your Australia cock and bull story.
Debating the concept of 'need' in a Constitutional context is a fool's errand. How much does one need to talk or write under the 1st Amendment? 'Need' implies acquisition by permission and permission implies allocation by some entity, presumably government. But our rights are not granted by government so telling them I need to talk or write is nonsensical.
The slippery slope argument may be deemed 'tired' but only because it is applicable in so many instances. Let's use those good old seat belt laws. Remember when they were first proposed? The usual hand-wringing SAAAAAAFETY crowd assured us that the laws were for our own good (sounds familiar). First they were a secondary offense with warnings issued. Then the fines increased. Then they became a primary offense. Then the fines increased again. And oh, by the way, since they're a primary offense the police just might want to search your vehicle while you're pulled over. Then we had the ludicrous but very real sight of East German-style checkpoints deemed seat belt safety checks or, worse, infant seat checks (because you want your baby to die in an accident but the benevolent state doesn't), all under the rubric of The Governor's Highway Safety Program (accurate title: federal money paying for local, county and state police overtime with little or no involvement from the governor). The slope doesn't get any more slippery than that! 4th and 5th Amendments? What are they? Reasonable restrictions? What is reasonable about being detained and questioned without probable cause?
Gun control types are fond of terms like 'reasonable' and 'common sense' but never get round to answering one simple question: How does taking guns away from the sane and law-abiding in anyway affect the behavior of the insane and criminal?
February 6, 2013 at 10:20 am | Report comment
Shadow
Your point on safety belts is well taken. I have often been concerned when I see a school bus going 70 MPH and the students contained therein being subject to being Flying Objects. It really goes under the same theme, we know what is best for you and we will do what we durn please as we are the Government.
February 6, 2013 at 10:33 am | Report comment
thornton
It's always good to both respect and defend the Constitution....as well as protect the old hearth and homestead.
I simply wish I was not included in the group of crazy preppers who believe they will be stacking their neighbors like cordwood behind the garage when they come to take their canned sausage following the Yellowstone super volcano eruption or with those Walter Mitty relatives who soon expect to be fighting federal tyranny on the banks of the Kanawha.
I can easily seperate from fear-mongers like the NRA and Nugent and Finestein....it's the general lay down with dogs theory that bothers me.
Until the threat to the 2nd ceases to be defined by the extremists on both sides the profiteers on both sides will continue to fatten.
James in Charleston...
"And when mans best friend chews up your newspaper or slippers and you find out 1st thing in the morning, your gun is still there."...wonderfully idiotic comment related to the sad attitude present in far too many gunowners.
Slippers?...you would shoot your own dog, eh?
See why I hate to be included in a group with clowns and dolts and gunowners like that?
Tough guys....too often keyboard creations.
February 6, 2013 at 8:32 am | Report comment
Dave
Rockefeller has been anti gun for decades. Byrd wasn't exactly pro gun and now Machin has switched from pro gun to anti gun. Seems Obama can twist democrat arms as needed no matter what their previous stance on gun control. Seems Obama can get whatever he wants. But how can any of this stuff pass the Republican controlled House? It's mind boggling that Obama seems to get what he wants from Republicans too.
February 6, 2013 at 9:10 am | Report comment
Geno
For all of those who doesn't like guns, get use to them, they are here to stay.
February 6, 2013 at 9:12 am | Report comment
Dave
All the numbers favor less gun control, not more. And all you have to do is look at the "success" of drug control to see how tight gun control would work to reduce crime.
But emotions dictate policy not facts. And that's the bottom line. He or she who says it most often and loudest is best believed. The average person can't be bothered to do any research to find facts on his or her own.
If you do you might discover that Vermont has has concealed carry of handguns without a permit for decades. And they have almost no crime. That's right, residents and non residents can carry handguns concealed with no permit, no class, no background check. And they have almost no crime.
All the mass shootings have been in gun free zones. The batman movie shooter said he picked that theater because it was the only gun free theater in his area.
But it's a lot easier to think that gun control will be a solution. After all, a person who is willing to break the law by murdering someone would never break the law to get a gun that is made illegal.
And we all know making something illegal always gets rid of supply. For example Cocaine is illegal and so there is no cocaine in America. And if guns were 100% illegal and all guns melted down, criminals couldn't pack guns next to the imaginary cocaine and ship them in by the hundreds of thousands.
So feel safe in knowing that taking guns away from people who already follow the law will make criminals unable to continue to break laws. They get weapons in prison but they won't be able to get them on the street.
February 6, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report comment
Dave Jackson
If you care to be informed, once again please read Eugene Robinson's column in the Feb. 5 edition of the Washington Post.
February 6, 2013 at 9:50 am | Report comment
Dave
Or you could look up actual crime stats and forgo the emotional overload. You might find that the areas with the most gun control have the most gun crime. Chicago has the toughest gun control in the country and they had 500 gun murders last year. I wonder how many Vermont had? Want to look it up? Can't be bothered?
I grew up in the DC area. At the time, it was illegal for DC residents to own a handgun in their HOMES. There were murders almost every single night, gangs were spraying each other with fully automatic machine guns. Nevermind that machine guns were class III permit only, somehow the guns didn't get their permits I guess. They had handguns, machine guns whatever they wanted to have. At a time when there was no legal concealed carry (still isn't in DC except for favored "elites"), and no handgun ownership allowed even in homes (now turned over by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional).
A famous talk show host in DC ranted that handguns shouldn't be allowed in residents' homes. Someone broke into his house and he shot at the the robber with an illegal handgun.
Whoopi Goldberg has ranted for years about people not being allowed to own guns. I saw an interview with her in her home. At that time, she lived in a gated community and she kept a handgun on her nightstand. I bet she had armed security too and still does. You can bet almost all the VIPS do. But they want you disarmed.
February 6, 2013 at 10:06 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
As a result of one of the President's executive actions Eric Holder has illegally ordered ATF to maintain NICS check data for ten years instead of destroying it immediately. As these will be digital records and not notes on paper they will, in reality be held indefinitely. When combined with "universal background checks" (leaving out all criminal transactions, of course) these records will gradually become a de-facto form of firearm registration for law abiding citizens.
Since Form 4473 can be altered administratively at any time look for it to become more detailed and invasive in the future.
February 6, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Do you hear helicopters overhead?
February 6, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Hippie,
The only propeller noise I hear comes from the propeller on your beanie.
About six months ago, just after Fast and Furious broke into the mainstream a question was added to Form 4473 about Hispanic ethnicity. These are retained by FFLs and in the event a store closes are sent into ATF. It would be impossible to use them to develop a registration system now as there are hundreds of millions of them, they are hand written, private transfers are allowed, and there is no mechanism to report firearm destruction to ATF (supporting the "I lost it in the woods"response). Also, accidental destruction of the forms can occur, paper degrades, and ink fades in storage. With "universal background checks" including adding a little more verbal information during the call and indefinite record retention an increasingly accurate database can be developed.
Right now only a FFL federal ID, serial number, purchaser name and optionally social security number, and general gun type (log gun or hand gun) is reported in a NICS call. I imagine more questions will soon be added if the administration gets it's way.
Canada recently repealed their long gun registry as it was an increasingly expensive boondoggle that proved totally ineffective. The RCMP is authorized to destroy copies of the digital database as various entities have obtained bootleg copies in hope of reconstituting it. This violates their law at this point and distribution of the long gun registry database was probably against privacy laws when it occurred.
BTW: "Universal background check" is a misnomer as most criminals do not obtain guns by the way honest citizens do and I imagine most guys who sell guns out of their trunks do not have ATFs number in the contacts list on their cell phones.
February 6, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Report comment
Hop'sHip
My propeller beanie is no match for your tin foil hat, Wowmaker. Let me just ask you this. Why do you think Obama wants to take your guns?
February 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
I've heard a few thing in the news recently.
February 7, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
Hop'sHip
Well I'm sure it was a reliable source.
February 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
scott strode
your on to something there bagger, in relation to that data. this will be the way to stop folks from buying too many guns over a period of time or at once, no matter their background. not that i agree, but thats whats on the horizon folks.
February 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Report comment