United States Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)—a longtime political chameleon and cunning electoral opportunist—has found an opportunity to again change “colors” in light of the demonic Newtown school shootings.
In a plea to fellow lawmakers, Warner seeks legislative action to put “appropriate restrictions” on firearms and find a “reasonable approach to restrict access” to certain weapons.
The slimy Senator, who currently (i.e. temporarily) holds an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) should be compelled to take the following multiple-choice quiz prior to seeking reelection or another political office:
I previously supported absolute 2nd Amendment rights because:
- “Hunting” used to be important.
- I could not have anticipated that someone would shoot young children.
- I knew that it was possible for someone to shoot young children, but since it had not happened yet, I could safely hold a “pro-gun” position for political purposes. (I live in Virginia, a semi-rural, semi-conservative state.)
- I never really believed in the necessity of the 2nd Amendment, but that position was helpful to me in getting elected.
Now, I believe that 2nd Amendment rights should be restricted because:
- Young children were murdered by an evil person using a gun.
- The president said so, and I follow his lead.
- I want to appear compassionate.
- Banning access to certain types of guns will make us a safer nation.
- I was waiting for this opportunity to switch my position on firearms; I know that a NRA-endorsed, “pro-gun” Democrat would not be a viable primary candidate for President of the United States.
- I finally realized that guns, not people, are the problem.
- The United States Constitution is fungible.
While Mark Warner cites acceding to questions raised by his daughters as an excuse for changing his mind on the U.S. Constitution, his Virginia constituents are looking for a better, more substantive answer as to why the mendacious Democrat would willingly subvert the 2nd Amendment and his sworn Oath of Office.
Was Democrat Mark Warner really ever a 2nd Amendment supporter?
Rob, this is what I wrote to Mr Warner
Mr Warner,
When you visit a doctor he or she often times just treats the symptoms and not the cause, as with gun violence …treating the symptom and not the cause will not solve these issue’s, .the cause needs to be addressed and treated…I was a teen in the 70’s and some of us would have our hunting rifles in our trucks at school because we would hunt after classes let out, never did anyone ever use a weapon in school to do the things that we have experienced today with gun violence. Teens and young adults will always face the same challenges no matter what decade they live in, even more so those that have some sort of disability. A break down in moral and faith values are truly the cause of these shootings…When we allow God to be taken out of our homes, schools and even our churches we end up with a Godless society…..I can only hope and pray that logic prevails in these times of madness! It is a proven fact when weapons are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens crime increases…this boy broke 41 laws and none of them prevented him from killing those innocent people….this is a heart issue of man in general…we all sin and have sinned, some just push the limits and cross that line that we know we shouldn’t cross….to deny the millions of law abiding gun owners their right to keep and bare arms who have not broken any laws is just as much as an injustice as someone abusing a weapon and using it to commit a crime….please honor your oath and uphold the constitution ….
Thank you, sincerely , Louis Costanzo
Have you ever read anything Mark Warner sends to constituents, this man is as shallow as an empty glass of water. He is just following the party line and in doing so is jumping on the bandwagon of publicity seekers while this country weeps. The people that are talking about banning guns have no knowledge of guns, they are just talking heads looking for a topic to get attention. The thread that ties each and every shooting at a public place is the sanity of the individual. Each of these people had mental problems in their history, but no one turned them in.
It is a proven fact when weapons are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens crime increases
Is it a proven fact that when semi-automatics are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens crime increases?
Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen – would taking a semi-automatic out of her hands have increased crime or prevented this one?
How would banning semi-automatics “subvert” the 2nd Amendment, which was intended to allow for “a well regulated militia”?
How does allowing civilians to purchase semi-automatics contribute to “a well regulated militia,” the maintenance of which was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
When the 2nd Amendment guarantees civilians the right to bear arms (which they no longer do for the purpose it guaranteed them that right in the first place), why does that mean that it also guarantees them the right to bear any and all kind of arms?
If “a break down in moral and faith values” is “truly” causing these massacres, isn’t that a good reason to ban semi-automatics, thus preventing these massacres, unless and until the trend is reversed and the country is more moral and spiritual?
Steve, could not agree more…
“How would banning semi-automatics “subvert” the 2nd Amendment, which was intended to allow for “a well regulated militia”?
Ken. What part of “Congress shall make no law” do you not understand? In any case, the reactions to this are predictable. The mental health “experts” (and I use that term lightly) will be trying to find an explanation for this tragic event that will fit their utilitarian philosophy (and once again fail), and the gun control crowd will seize the opportunity to blame evil on more inanimate objects instead of the moral creature that carried these actions out. There are many causes, but guns are not one of them.
You need to look up the text of the amendment, Puritan, because you clearly don’t know it. And then please explain how “moral creatures” can go on shooting sprees without guns.
go to Red Onion, Wallen Ridge, Greenville,Augusta, FCCW. Go talk to killer, the evil people and you find out it is not the gun. The trigger doesn’t pull itself. These individuals have no moral code, that is where everyone has gotten it wrong, these evil people live in a world that there is nothing wrong with taking someone life. Where is moral outrage of the individual kicking his gril friend baby to death, where is moral outrage of the individual who stuck her baby in mircowave. It is sad when people look at inanimate objects instead of looking at human being who did the killing. All this monday night quarterbacking is not proving anything. If his mother knew he was decompensating, why were weapons not in secure location? Why!, Why !.. There are too many unanswer whys…
Warner has a very long history of trying to come out on winning side. Change law, no gun what next, we eat with plastic, instead of metal, what next, we report each morning for our dose of happy medications, what next, reach a certain age and get recycle as in soylant green. it is sad that approximately 120,00+ children die in this world each day at hands of evil people and these is no moral outrage!
The trigger doesn’t pull itself.
That’s true. And nuclear weapons don’t detonate themselves, so why shouldn’t nuclear weapons be for sale? Good people have every bit as much use for them as for semi-automatics (which is to say, no use at all), and they’ll use them responsibly. So why not?
Well, just pick out 4 words and expect someone to come up with answer. it is simple that a blind man already know the answer. To impractical, to large to handle, to costly, and clean up would be a bitch. Plus again the law to have one. Mr. Regan put it best — “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guillty rahter than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” the point is too much monday night quarterling backing, too much finger pointing. Go get a job in a correctional institution and learn how an evil person thinks and realize that there are evil people in this world and to kill someone big deal. the good people I know have no desire to own nuclear weapon, more less play with one. It is good people who will end up getting blame for an evil preson action, it is easier to punish everyone than the individuals. It still stand one day, reach a certain age and recycle to soyant green.
the good people I know have no desire to own nuclear weapon
Do the good people you know have a desire to own semi-automatics?? Blind men know why they shouldn’t be legal either – because if they weren’t then 20 innocent kids and 6 innocent adults in Connecticut would still be alive. Not to mention people in Aurora. And at Columbine. Etc.
Notice that not one person reading this has even tried to answer a single one of my simple questions. You keep talking about evil people, but instead of taking the one step that’s sure to stop this kind of evil, you guys pretend that step is an attempt to punish you. We don’t want to punish you. We want you to quit pretending that common sense gun laws are an attack on your holy, all-important “rights,” and to quit feeling sorry for yourselves every time someone proposes them.
Ken,
First point well taken (feel stupid confusing my amendments). In any case, the text is clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the Federal Government. Any law that is passed, by definition, violates the 2nd Amendment.
Secondly, you are assuming that gun laws will keep people from using guns. It works so well with drugs eh?
Like anything else, if we misdiagnose the problem, we will misdiagnose the solution. If you want a good case-in-point, Great Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe. It also has far and away the most violent crime.
Puritan, the amendment was written because “a well regulated militia [was thought] necessary to the security of a free state.” Again, how does permitting the sale of semi-automatics today provide for that militia, and how does their sale contribute to the security of a free state? Are you a survivalist? Do you think you need a semi so you can shoot a federal agent if he busts down your door?
The only law that would infringe on your right to “keep and bear arms” would be one that banned the sale and possession of all arms. You can make an argument that banning semis violates the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, but as a matter of simple logic, it doesn’t violate the letter of it. And as regards the spirit of the law, even if you disregard the purpose clearly stated in the amendment itself, it’s also true the Framers did not foresee a day when madmen were using sporting weapons to murder innocent people and gangbangers were using them to kill each other and anyone caught in the crossfire.
Secondly, Britain has more violent crime than we do, but most other industrial nations have less. The U.S. gun homicide rate is 12 times that of the average for other developed countries. And as for murder, the U.S has 3.2 gun homicides per 100,000 residents per year while England and Wales have only 3% of that.
Finally, you’re misstating the argument for stronger gun laws. Nobody says that if semis were banned there would be no gun crime at all. We just point to the obvious fact that if semis were banned there would be no mass murder at a school in Newtown or a movie theater in Aurora or a shopping mall in Arizona. Stronger gun laws would have saved those innocent people, and will save other innocents in the future. Are your “rights” worth more than their lives?
The cesspool know as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there has been 446 school age childern shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanual and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged childern have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this years and almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthly? Is it because most of the kids were shot and killed by minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesnn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly , no Obama crocodile tearsd either.
For those of us who are too dense to understand the point, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No matter draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights.
As I will got to my grave, it is not the gun, does matter if single shot or semis once the evil person or nut job or crazed decide need a gun and to use there is really not much you can do. Guns are reported stolen, go missing and are inported into this country. If nation has a hard time stopping drug shipments, how going to stop the gun shipment?
Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country
But there are God knows how many guns on the street from before the tough law was enacted in 2010.
despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media.
Not true at all. I googled “gun violence in Chicago” and found a Washington Post article on the subject dated yesterday, an MSNBC article dated Thursday, a Huffington Post article dated October 22, a New York Times article dated October 3, and a Daily Beast article dated August 31. PBS Newshour had an segment on it 2010. NPR had one in July of this year. And that’s all just on violence in Chicago.
The rest of your rant is an argument that since we can’t stop all violence, we shouldn’t stop any.
I heard the gun discussion on the show today, and the incredibly twisted and downright evil charge that liberal public officials who have security at school for their kids (because sickos might target the kids of powerful people, of course), but oppose arming teachers in other schools, oppose it because they don’t care about the kids at those schools.
I think there is an argument to be made for having armed guards at schools. I don’t know that that would be a good idea, but I respect the argument that it would. But how can any Bible-quoting Christian have so little love in his heart that he’d say such a stupid thing and not understand, even if disagree with, the real reasons these people oppose guns in schools? It takes real and habitual prejudice to be so blind.
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently had this to say:
“People use guns. But in a sense guns use people, too. When we have the technology for violence easily to hand, our choices are skewed and we are more vulnerable to being manipulated into violent action.”
For intelligent commentary on the issue of guns and gun control from a recognizably Christian conservative – that is, one not full of smug disdain for his political enemies – google “Alan Jacobs, A Christmas Thought About Guns.”
“We just point to the obvious fact that if semis were banned there would be no mass murder……..”
Despite what play with words and having monopoly in influence through whatever gets said, it’s still “one of these things don’t belong with the others.” Sadly, there’d still be a potential of mass murder. Only you’d perhaps have the circumstance arranged to fit your righteous sense and legislative orchestration of outlaws only having banned weapons causing such mass murders. Frankly, I don’t relish making the law out as setting up the willingly law-abiding as sitting sheep.