Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The battle for Virginia gun show freedom is not yet won

Last Friday, I apparently got a bit ahead of myself in celebrating the ignominious defeat of the Virginia House of Delegates bill to close the mythical "gun show loophole." I hadn't considered the fact that a Senate version, SB 109, is still very much alive, and is considered to have a better chance of passing in the Senate than anti-rights bills do in the House. Granted, if it does pass in the Senate, it will then go to the House of Delegates (and in fact to the same committee that so handily dispatched the House version). Still, the earlier such legislation is killed, the better.

The anti-rights lobby is pushing this bill hard, and has no compunction about exploiting the deaths of the innocent to further their agenda.

"Today, united with the families of our fellow Virginians whose loved ones have been lost forever, we fight back for change!" protest organizer Abigail Spangler told supporters, many wearing ribbons in Tech's colors of maroon and orange.
The protest organized by Ms. Spangler was called a "lie-in" (a surprisingly frank term to describe the actions of a group that advocates "safety" through helplessness), in which groups of 32 people, representing the victims last April at Virginia Tech, lie on the ground. The "change" to which she refers, apparently, is from the victim disarmament policy (so beloved of Larry Hincker) in place at VA Tech at the time of the killings, to . . . still more gun legislation.

Blissfully unconcerned with the fact that the killer didn't acquire either of his guns at a gun show, the anti-rights crowd lobbied Virginia's state senators to pass SB 109.

They, however, were not the only ones present.
Colin Goddard, who survived despite being shot four times by Cho, was taken aback when a member of the Firearms Coalition approached him and said students could have stopped the rampage if they had been allowed to carry handguns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Jeff Knox, director of operations for the Manassas-based group told Goddard. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal, I did it."
Goddard's response?
"I feel sorry for you--the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation," the Virginia Tech senior said. "You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things. Things are gonna happen out of my control.
No, Colin, Mr. Knox is not afraid, because he will be prepared to actively defend himself, rather than trying to hide under a desk. Save your pity for people who are unwilling to make such preparations--people like . . . you, for example.
"There are people within our society who we deem capable and correct, our police forces who are supposed to protect us--and I put my full trust in them."
And how well did that work out, Colin? Well, at least no members of "our police forces" were hurt.

The issue at hand, though, is SB 109--more specifically, how to defeat it. The Senate committee (Courts of Justice) that heard testimony from both sides today will vote Wednesday on whether to pass the bill along to the entire Senate. Before then (which basically means today), they need to hear from a bunch of Virginians concerned about the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Without wishing to intrude on the superb work done by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, here are the names and contact information of the committee members:
Senator Henry L. Marsh III (D) - Senate District 16 (committee chairman, and sponsor of the bill): (804) 698-7516 district16@sov.state.va.us

Senator Richard L. Saslaw (D) - Senate District 35: (804) 698-7535 district35@sov.state.va.us

Senator Kenneth W. Stolle (R) - Senate District 8: (804) 698-7508 district08@sov.state.va.us

Senator Frederick M. Quayle (R) - Senate District 13: (804) 698-7513 district13@sov.state.va.us

Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R) - Senate District 3: (804) 698-7503 district03@sov.state.va.us

Senator Janet D. Howell (D) - Senate District 32: (804) 698-7532 district32@sov.state.va.us

Senator L. Louise Lucas (D) - Senate District 18: (804) 698-7518 district18@sov.state.va.us

Senator John S. Edwards (D) - Senate District 21: (804) 698-7521 district21@sov.state.va.us

Senator W. Roscoe Reynolds (D) - Senate District 20: (804) 698-7520 district20@sov.state.va.us

Senator Linda T. Puller (D) - Senate District 36: (804) 698-7536 district36@sov.state.va.us

Senator Ken T. Cuccinelli, II (R) - Senate District 37: (804) 698-7537 district37@sov.state.va.us

Senator Mark D. Obenshain (R) - Senate District 26: (804) 698-7526 district26@sov.state.va.us

Senator Ryan T. McDougle (R) - Senate District 4: (804) 698-7504 district04@sov.state.va.us

Senator R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Senate District 25: (804) 698-7525 district25@sov.state.va.us

Senator Robert Hurt (R) - Senate District 19: (804) 698-7519 district219@sov.state.va.us
Long live the liberty "loophole."

UPDATE: Nicki says that it's not pity that Colin feels for Jeff Knox, but envy. David has a few choice words for him, too. Also see Sailor Curt's firsthand account of the day's events--a very good read.


Anonymous said...

Colin has the right to remain helpless if he so chooses. He doesn't have the right to require others to meekly sacrifice their lives.

I am sure he thinks his is the humaitarian view and that he holds the moral high ground. Assuming that we are our brother's keeper when it comes to moral high ground, how does he rationalize his failure to take the humanitarian moral high road in purposely advocating that no one, and certainly not himself be able to defend innocent life and give them a chance of survival?

While it can be argued that he is not obligated to defend others or even himself, I see no moral high ground in abetting murderers by advocating and practicing policies that further enhance the murderer's relative power.

I consider all such as him to be accomplices in the murder of innocents. That he does not see himself in that light, especially now that he has had a lesson in the lethality of unchallenged murderers, is, I think, self-serving. For how could he live with himself, otherwise, now that he is on record as approving more of the same?

InFerroVeritas said...

Echoing what straightarrow said....from sear and hammer:


"Self-defense is often a moral duty - To avoid defending ones self is to allow an aggressor to go unchallenged. This often directly results in the aggressor causing further harm. A father who does not defend himself may leave his children as orphans dependent upon the state. Further, the aggressor is allowed to continue to be an aggressor. While the victim may not be concerned with the protection of his own life he must also understand that other lives may be at risk should he fail to conclusively stop the aggressor. A murderer is likely to kill again. A rapist is likely to rape again. Failing to stop the aggressor places moral blame upon the person who does nothing in self-defense."

Anonymous said...

I was there. Here's my post on it.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Good comments, SA and Jeff. Good post Sailor--I updated my post with a link.

Laughingdog said...

"our police forces who are supposed to protect us"

Here's that kids first mistake. Unlike him, we all know that the police have no duty or responsibility to protect us, and the Supreme Court has reiterated that fact repeatedly.