Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Colgan Goes Anti-Second Amendment

By Greg L | 20 October 2007 | 29th VA Senate | 23 Comments

Now that Chuck Colgan has pretty much failed to counter Bob Fitzsimmond’s criticism of his voting record, he’s decided to go on the attack in a rather unusual way that really makes me wonder whether he understands this district at all.  Noting that Bob Fitzsimmonds has worked for Senator Ken Cuccinelli in the past, he’s trying to hold Fitzsimmonds responsible for the paid work he did for Senator Cuccinelli.  That wouldn’t be too bad, except that Colgan is taking Fitzsimmonds to task for his support of Second Amendment rights, which is quite a hot-button and popular issue in the 29th District.

Now here’s where it gets plenty goofy:  pictured here is a “Government Issue” M1911 .45 caliber pistol.  It’s been issued to American servicemen as a sidearm from before World War I until the mid-1990’s.  It has a seven round, “single stack” magazine, and is one of the most popular defensive firearms styles for those with concealed carry permits.  It’s a rather expensive firearm, because it’s either a collectible at this point, or significantly modified as a target-grade match pistol or concealed carry pistol.  The one pictured above is a “stock” pistol, which probably would make this a collectors item that would sell for well over a thousand dollars, and shows a fair amount of wear from a holster, which probably makes this firearm of some historic value.

This isn’t what a criminal would carry.  A .45 requires a significant amount of practice in order to shoot well, has a limited magazine capacity, and is not an economy firearm by any stretch of the imagination.  Criminals prefer firearms that are cheaper, and have larger magazine capacities.  When police confiscate firearms from criminals, they’re very frequently 9mm or smaller caliber cheap guns that are worth a whole lot less than the one pictured.  Suggesting that this sort of firearm is a danger to public safety is just going to piss off a whole lot of folks who are familiar with firearms and squarely paint Senator Colgan as solidly anti-Second Amendment and terminally uninformed.  The over-the-top rhetoric that infests this mail piece only reinforces this conclusion.

Bob Fitzsimmonds worked on behalf of Senator Cuccinelli to ensure that those holding concealed carry permits — a huge group of Virginians that has never been shown to be a danger to public safety — can exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and their families in the widest number of locations possible.  This is a pretty popular idea in the 29th District, and it’s pretty stunning that Colgan would think he’s going to be able to win in the District based on his apparent belief that we can’t trust concealed carry permit holders to behave themselves in libraries when they certainly seem to do so everywhere else.  There are a lot of concealed carry permit holders in the district, and Colgan just told every one of them that he doesn’t want their vote.

So in his attempt to win, Colgan is coming out against Second Amendment rights.  So much for his supposed “conservative” credentials as a Democrat.

This just smells of desperation.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. John Light said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey, wait a second…I got the same mailer but with Ken’s name and face on it - gosh darn it all, you mean it was BOB who did all this and NOT Ken??? Can’t the Dems make up their mind???

  2. Don't hate said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    You really think the type of gun in the picture makes a difference? Quite a stretch. And because the Senator wants to tighten gun laws means he is against what you think the 2nd Amendment says? Another stretch. How do you feel about the gun show loophole? I know that the only people I want to own guns are known law abiding citizens.

  3. John Light said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Personally, I have NO problem with the gun shows. What I DO have a problem with is people trying to chip away at our REAL Rights and say that all they are doing is trying to protect us.

  4. John Light said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I think you have your decades mixed up. I remember the M1911 .45 caliber pistol as having gone out of favor with the military around the mid 1980s. I verified this thru Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_Colt_pistol).

    Otherwise, you are pretty spot on!!!

    [Ed. Note: good catch. In the Guard it took a while to replace the inventory, though. We got ‘em for a little longer, which was nice even though they were terribly worn.]

  5. Thumper said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Military management may have decided that 1911 .45 caliber has gone out of favor but majority of military guys still have a love for that pistol and no real love for M9 POS that replaced it.

  6. John Light said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thumper - you are 100% correct there!!! I honestly believe that those who choose the weapons are NOT the ones who USE the weapons.

  7. Anonymous said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is there a limit that any pro-gunners would approve? Should we limit the ability to buy and sell assualt weapons? Automatic weapons? 81mm mortars? 250mm artillery? Nukes? If not here, why complain about other countries building arsenals (we’ve proven over the last 6 years that we are incapable of our own self-control and yet we presume that we know best)? Why is it not ok to require that all gun owners be licensed? Why not require safe handling classes? We require licenses to own businesses, cars, airplanes and dogs (all are private property protected by the Constitution), but the concept of any kind of licensure or any limits freaks out the gun lobby. They remind me of the freaks that believe that WT7 was dropped by controlled explosions and that 9/11 was an inside job.

  8. mnd said on 21 Oct 2007 at 6:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Sheesh, there is no “gun show loophole”.

    The FBI data has already confirmed that the number of guns acquired from gun shows by criminals is minimal in the extreme.

    Anyone running with the “oh no! gun show loophole!” line is getting their material from the Brady campaign. They’re the real nut-jobs.

    Anyhow, I’m pleased to finally see Colgan’s stance.

    Oh, and Anonymous said on 20 Oct 2007 at 11:55 pm:

    Assault weapons are code for “guns we want to ban” and are not an actual weapon type.

    Automatic weapons (defined as machine guns by the NFA of 1934) are legal to own with a $200 tax stamp.

    81mm mortars are a destructive device (NFA, 1934) and are legal to own with a tax stamp.

    250mm artillery would be a destructive device (NFA, 1934). I’ll point out that until the air-canons came on the scene, recoilless rifles in this range were used for avalanche control in Colorado.

    Nukes are regulated by the NRC.

    Licensing of firearms ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Arguing this one is like arguing against gravity.

    Folks, unless you’re engaged in buying or selling drugs, or in criminal enterprise, or are surrounding yourself with people that are involved in the same, your chances of being a victim of “gun crime” is very very very low. Again, this is all public crime data that anyone can look at. More people died of MRSA last year than were murdered with firearms.
    Now, people do win the bad luck lottery. Only thing we can do about that is to BE PREPARED and to take responsibility for our own safety.

    Its already against the law to commit murder. If that law isn’t sufficient, further laws will have less effect.

  9. Patty said on 21 Oct 2007 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    My husband was required to go through a background check and class in oder to sell guns. The possiblity always exists for someone to purchase a gun legitimately even at a store and then give it to a criminal or to someone who will commit a crime. I believe it is called a strawman purchase. It is a crime to do that. Also, we do have to remember there have been a few murders and attacks with knives lately. Shall we ban them also? The illegal alien criminal loves to use machetes or something on that order but smaller.

    I took a hunter education class a few years back. The instructor told us the pencils we were holding are considered weapons and can be dangerous. There was a girl in my neighborhood that was beaten and kicked recently. Should the assailant’s hands and feet be cut off?

    The problem is not the gun, knife or fists but the person holding the gun, knife or fist. If someone is going to hurt someone, they will find a way to do it, whether it is a gun, knife or fist. That is a fact!

  10. Anonymous said on 21 Oct 2007 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Look at the last line on the flyer.

  11. John Light said on 21 Oct 2007 at 9:35 am:
    Flag comment

    If I wanted to, I could do MUCH more damage and harm to people with my car (no need to reload, only to fill-up) than I could with a gun. Should we outlaw cars??? AIDS, which is spread thru sex, has killed more people than guns…should we outlaw sex?

    While yes, I do believe and personally have no problem with making it mandatory to take an NRA approved class with the purchase of a gun, I am hesitant of the Federal Government knowing that I have one. Remember the wonder years with Janet Reno has head of Justice? She would send in her crack team of BATF agents to the wrong house, kill the owner, then one of the agents would say, “Um, I think we got the wrong house” with NO retribution or jail time for the idiots. No, I just do not trust my govt when a Liberal is in charge.

    And since the mention of “assault weapons” was brought forth, please keep this in mind. To a Liberal, an “assault weapon” is ANYTHING that looks, or sounds, scary. Most Libs have a religion against the military so they have no clue whatsoever the difference between an auto and semi-automatic weapon, between an M-16 A2 and civilian look-a-like, and they probably could not even field strip a weapon blindfolded, which ANY responsible gun owner should be able to do (if the lights go out when you are cleaning your weapon and you hear the perp walking around your house, it’s too late to try and find a flashlight to get the job done).

    In this country, we throw the word “Right” around such as “we have this or that Right” - well, the only Rights we have are that spelled out in the Constitution, like it or not, and the second Right that our founding Fathers mentioned was the Right to Bear Arms. These men were geniuses and knew too clearly of repressive governments.

  12. John Light said on 21 Oct 2007 at 9:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous used the phrase “gun lovers.” Ok, you go into a room full of people who think like you, I will go into a room full of people like me. Both groups will stand in a line, facing the door. The next person who walks thru that door is be there with the intent to cause us harm. Oh, this guy is outfitted with enough weapons to make John Rambo jealous. Let’s see you talk your way out of THAT!!!

    True story (and there are SO many true stories of people saving their own lives with guns): Back when I was at The Citadel, this genius in Columbia decided to rob a bank. He thought it would be best to do it right before lunch time. He thought that by walking into the bank, wielding a gun, he would scare the customers and they would give him their valuables as well. What he FAILED to do was check the buildings around him.

    See, it was pay day for the FBI that day and all the agents used the same bank (because of its proximity to the Bureau’s local office). And they routinely went to this bank to get cash just before lunch. Needless to say, genius took out his gun and every person in the bank took out theirs (and not all were FBI agents). He surrendered without a shot being fired.

  13. General Turgidson said on 21 Oct 2007 at 11:02 am:
    Flag comment

    What part of “Shall not be infringed” is it that the PC (Marxist) crowd
    doesn’t understand?

  14. Anonymous said on 21 Oct 2007 at 12:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am sure the VA TECH Shooter appreciates Mr. Fitzsimmonds fighting for his rights.

  15. Thumper said on 21 Oct 2007 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    VA Tech shooter didn’t get his guns at gun show so I’m not sure what your implying. Mr. Fitzsimmonds did fight for adults at VA Tech not to be left to whims of madman, something Democrats did by disarming college students and professors.

  16. PWConservative said on 21 Oct 2007 at 3:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Unlike Bridgewater (Rated the 2nd Safest campus in the country) VTECH Is a GUN FREE ZONE. How Come all the mass murders happen in those zones? the shooters aren’t going to pay attention to some rule, if they’r intention is to kill a ton of people anyway

  17. Don't hate said on 21 Oct 2007 at 3:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe because Bridgewater has less students than most of our high schools. It must be a lot easier to keep such a small population safe in any situation.

  18. slh said on 21 Oct 2007 at 3:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Colgan’s left leaning sympathies certainly are clear with his anti-Second Amendment ad. But then his most vociferous support seems to be coming from the left and from the illegal immigrant crowd.

  19. Anonymous said on 21 Oct 2007 at 10:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh yea, Chuck Colgan is real left leaning.
    Read the Paid for by the Democratic Party, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANIDATE OR CANIDATE COMMITTEE. Chances are Colgan never say the ad. It looks the party is sending the same ad out for all Repubs.

    The VA Tech shooter did have a history of mental Health Issues
    but he still got a gun. Read item number two.

  20. Patty said on 22 Oct 2007 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Well Anonymous (you still don’t have the guts to type in a name or you are just plain lazy) don’t you think the mental health people who knew about the VA Tech shooter should have alerted police about him. Obviously he was a dangerous fellow but you have to blame the gun. I suppose he could of got his hands on fertilizer and a truck and done more damage. Shall we ban fertilizer?

  21. Thumper said on 22 Oct 2007 at 10:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon 10:37

    Doesn’t matter if Chuck Colgan saw the ad, it’s attacking his opponent therefore, he is responsible for the content inside of it. There were zero bills in front Virginia Leg that dealt with mental health issues that were not complete and utter crap.

    Cho was a completely crazy loon who snapped. There are alot of completely crazy loons out there who could snap at any moment. You probably don’t see them but I’m sure cops do. Only hope is someone convinces the crazies to seek treatment and they don’t snap on you.

    Only remedy I see that would probably work is allowing cops to lock up people who are crazy against their will and force medication down their throat. Let me know if you want to head down that police state route.

  22. mnd said on 22 Oct 2007 at 11:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Regardless of who paid for the flyer, if Colgan isn’t voting FOR the 2nd amendment then I’ve got no use for him.

  23. dolph said on 23 Oct 2007 at 2:57 am:
    Flag comment

    How does one vote FOR the second amendment? It has been in place, as part of the Bill of Rights, for well over 200 years.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2537