Philip Van Cleave 
Member since May 1, 2014


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Gun Control

Clark, responding to your post on 6 that make sense:

1. There is NO gun show loophole. There is nothing you can do inside a gun show that you can't do anywhere else. Buy from a dealer and get a background check no matter where you are. Private sales, no background check, no matter where you are. Private sales keep the government from knowing exactly which guns people have, which is none of the government's business. Only a tiny amount of guns used by criminals come from gun shows and most of those are straw purchases, as private sellers have very few guns to sell compared to a dealer.

2. The ban on research is only on research whose goal is more gun control. That kind of biased, phony "government" research was banned for a good reason.

3. Locked up guns are of no use in an emergency. However leaving them around where a child could get unfettered access is already illegal. The problem is a "one-size-fits-all" law. And if someone breaks into your house and steals one of your guns and uses it in a crime, that is YOUR fault? Really? Do we do that with stolen cars used in bank robberies? No, you'd get laughed out of town.

4. In all the years that bump stocks have been around, there was one crime committed. A bump stock actually made the bad guy less effective at that range. We'd have no cars now if the first time one was used in a crime they had been banned. That's not how liberty is supposed to work - punish the criminal, not everyone else.

5. ROFLMAO! Oh, yeah, bad guys who already are getting 97% their guns illegally (black market, stolen, straw purchases, etc.) are going to get them legally all of a sudden and wait for a police interview. And for good people, that interview is guaranteed to make purchasing a gun something that could take months. England is doing that kind of thing, but their murder rates have historically always been low, even when people could carry guns for self-defense in the early 1900s. Again, not something one would ever hope to see in America.

6. The problem with smart guns, besides being a stupid idea for self-defense, is that some states are ready to cram them down everyone's throat as a REQUIREMENT once they are available. If those states would drop that idea, then no one would care. "Smart" guns could then succeed or fail on their own merits. Why a stupid idea? They won't work if the owner is wearing gloves, has blood or other liquids on his hands, can fail with a low battery, can't be used by another "friendly" person in an emergency, could be possibly disabled by electronic interference, etc. I want something that goes bang when I pull the trigger.

There are thousands of gun control laws on the books - way too many, almost all of which are useless. The gun controllers have never offered gun owners something substantial in return. Gun owners are simply expected to give up freedoms for nothing. We've done that for years and that gravy train is over. We have been restoring lost freedoms and will continue to do so.

24 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Philip Van Cleave on 08/01/2018 at 10:53 AM

Re: “Gun Control

Mr. Griswold - you are correct, the U.S. has more per capita guns than any other country, hands down. Yet our murder rate is 112th from the top in the world. Guns do not cause murder any more than silverware makes people fat.

And since when is a lot of people exercising a basic right a serious problem? Too much free speech out there for you, too? And who exactly gets to say how many guns are too many?

25 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Philip Van Cleave on 07/31/2018 at 7:22 PM

Re: “Gun Control

"Decision-making should be left at local level, not the state level."

Baloney, Chief. That makes a hopeless mess of laws that no one can figure out. It allows a 5 or 6 people on a city council or board of supervisors to restrict a basic civil right. Virginia tried it in the past and it was a failure.

We finally got rid of all local gun control in 2004 and hopefully local government will never get it back. All a gun owner needs to know now is state law to stay legal as he goes about his business in Virginia.

What's also odd is the Chief is assuming criminals will obey whatever laws Richmond were to come up with. A police chief should absolutely know better than that.

26 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Philip Van Cleave on 07/31/2018 at 7:13 PM

Re: “Gun Control

At first I thought this was something from the Onion. But it appears the article is actually seriously pushing all the gun-control fantasies from the last decade and a few newer ones. If gun control worked and all those items above worked, Chicago and DC would be the safest places in America. The Aussie scheme is gun confiscation, but at least you get some money for the guns they are taking from you by force. No thanks, I'll keep my guns and you keep your money. You want to lower crime? Control criminals and, voila, you're pretty much done.

31 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Philip Van Cleave on 07/31/2018 at 3:29 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

Copyright © 2018 Style Weekly
Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
All rights reserved
Powered by Foundation