Comments on: Colgan And Barker Break Another Promise

By: Red, White and Blue

Red, White and Blue — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:56:23 +0000

Duck Colgan - Called his office 3 straight days - sent a Fax, sent an email and asked for a reply. Never heard from him or his so-called assistant. Nothing, zero, zip, nada. He is worthless except for deals for his airport.

Duck, you are worthless. Just quit. Go away. I don’t need anymore royalty running my life. Even if you disagreed, I deserve a call. You and your assistant failed to ever followup on a simple request.

Oh great prince, forgive me for contacting you, your grace.

By: manassascityresident

manassascityresident — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:54:12 +0000

Click on the link below and give Obama a grade.

I bet MSNBC is shocked that so far, he’s ranking a strong “F”……
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:14:44 +0000

NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 8:23 pm: Flag comment

Ms PWC Gal:

MUY, MUY MACHO!

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:23:44 +0000

Ms PWC Gal:

Unauthorized nighttime visitors at the Scout estate who don’t knock before entering will be warmly welcomed by a 110 pound guard dog whose mission in life, besides loving me and my daughters truly, madly, deeply, is to create enough ruckus to enable me to grab my good friend Mr. SIG. He completes the Welcome Wagon duties. My “snark” was about legislation that seemed to be based on the idea that military families needed relief from the 1 gun/month rule. If you thought I was endorsing some sort of ban on military families having weapons, you misread the comment. I agree with others that if there is a problem with 1 gun a month, it extends beyond military families. However, in my case, no matter how many guns I buy a month, one will be all I can handle if I get one of those nighttime visits.

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:34:38 +0000

Pat Herve,

The story is we have anti-American and anti- Constitutional elected officials who want to take our rights away.

Would you be willing to support a limit of how many times one can voice their opinion?

By: Pat.Herve

Pat.Herve — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:12:58 +0000

Can you point to any instance where a military family needed more than two (one per adults) handguns per month?

This is just trying to make a story where there is no story.

By: PWC_Gal

PWC_Gal — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:43:25 +0000

NOVAScout:
Nice snark. FWIW, some military families are at greater risk. My husband testified in open court in Iraq against some very bad guys, knowing that our family would be targeted. He himself was targeted for assassination while in the AO, and they came pretty damn close to being successful. Prior to this, I did not own a gun nor had any desire to. Now, we have several and everyone in the household knows how to use them, including our 11 yo daughter, along with other security measures that I never thought I would have to be aware of. Sorry, I don’t plan on waiting for the police to perhaps show up and then hang around the outside of my house for an hour or so until they decide it’s safe for them to enter. Binghamton NY is the latest example that affirms that many in the policing field are more interested in protecting property (due to the large amt of $$ that the insurance industry throws at them) than actual security of individuals.

Somehow, I don’t think this is an issue you have to contend with, and I am happy for you. Of course, if your family is the victim of a home invasion, I am sure you will be completely understanding of your “visitors” and give them a warm welcome. Cause home invasions never, ever happen in the burbs, and if they do, it’s because the invaders were “misunderstood” and somehow justified. Right?

I realize that we have been out of the state on orders for awhile, but this development surprises me. When I last personally purchased firearms I was told the limit was “3 per day”, and even that restriction had created much hue and cry. When did that get downgraded to “1 per month”? And the non-blue part of VA just let that go down without a peep? WTH is happening in VA?

If a prospective gun owner has completed certified training on how to use and secure firearms properly, then what difference does it make whether that individual buys 1 or 100? That’s like saying a properly trained and licensed driver can only have “x” number of vehicles. And, no, I don’t think that “military” need an exemption that is not available to any citizen who can demonstrate that they have been properly trained how to use firearms. I feel everyone who wants to own firearms should have to have training, much like getting behind the wheel of a car, and a reasonable person could sign off on an exemption for military for that. But aside from the proof of certification/training side, I don’t see why “military” need any special exemptions.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that gun purchases have been so severely restricted and everyone seems okay with that.

I’m getting pretty darn weary of all this interventionist crap and the continual erosion of liberty. The progs need to focus their attention on making individuals accountable for their choices (ie, “responsibility”) rather than expanding their nanny state.

Must go and finish putting the final touches on our Tea Party placards and wardrobe.

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:22:49 +0000

Mnd,
There is no need to have such a restriction military or otherwise. I guess those that supported the law wanted military members to have the same acess as CHP holders, who are exampt from the law.

By: mnd

mnd — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:19:18 +0000

You guys are missing that this was a bill designed to chip away at the One Handgun a Month law. The intent was not to provide military servicemen with extra privileges but to continue to push back the number of people impacted by this law.

By: Max Power

Max Power — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:38:40 +0000

Pennsylvania doesn’t have one gun a month, seems like it would be much quicker and easier to buy a trunk load there and bring them back to New York instead of Virginia

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:44:12 +0000

I bleed,

Thanks for pointing that out, I meant to say there should not be a limit to how often someone should be able to buy a gun, which matches up to what I said about the 1st Amendment.

Sounds like NY has a lot of bad people. Maybe NY should take care of their criminals instead of trying to impose their anti American attitude on Virginia.
Just because NY is full of criminals should not impact our laws here.

Hillary is trying to push the same BS with regard to the drug gangs in Mexico. Yes there is a drug issue here, but why would that force someone in Mexico to want to not only break the laws of that Nation, but also this Nation?

If you see a car parked on the side of the road with the keys in the ignition, are you going to steal it?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:37:09 +0000

There was an interesting subject on WMAL this morning concerning the “impending amnesty” for ALL illegal aliens in the country. Rep. Guiteriez from (where else) Chicago has been going around the country and holding sessions with latinos re the amnesty. The latinos have been telling him that Obama owes them for their votes in the last election. A caller made a statement that he had “inside” knowledge on the latino reaction and said they are calling their relatives overseas. Get ready for the next massive influx of illegals in the next few months.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:14:10 +0000

Emma: what about military families who are targetted and besieged in their homes? Consider this: what if you were in a constant firefight over the course of a month or more with banditos entrenched outside your house? After thousands of rounds are exchanged, one by one your weapons begin to jam or malfunction. The rifling is worn and gummed up, the action has become sticky and halting. You don’t have time to clean the weapons properly, because you have to keep a blanket of defensive fire going to prevent the besiegers from moving their earthworks closer and closer to your walls. You have no more weapons to give to the children, because when you were constructing your armory, you were limited to one gun a month. Your husband won’t be home from his submarine deployment for weeks. Wouldn’t you want to be able to buy more guns? Your legislators (except for Colgan and Barker) are looking out for you. It’s not like they’re going to allow themselves to be distracted by the Commonwealth’s finances, roadbuilding, education (what good is education for your kids if those guys finally break through) or that sort of silly s .

By: Emma

Emma — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:54:45 +0000

Impose the 1-per-month ban on EVERYONE, lift it for EVERYONE. Don’t we have enough special classes of people who are exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow? Aren’t my kids’ lives just as valuable as the lives of a soldier’s children?

By: I Bleed Obama Blue

I Bleed Obama Blue — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:24:26 +0000

Citi,

There is no limit to the number of legal guns one may own.

As I understand the one-handgun-per-month law, it is designed to thwart handgun trafficing, where a person buys, say, 10 handguns in Roanoke today, drives to NYC, and sells them illegally tomorrow for 100 - 500% more than they paid for the guns. Handgun trafficing has been a serious problem in NYC and other cities, and VA has been a primary supplier to the handgun trafficing industry.

I don’t see any particular need to exempt active duty military from such a ban.

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:02:20 +0000

There should never be a limit on how many guns a person can own, as long as they are legally allowed to of course.

Sorry, but you have provided your opinion too many times this month, so you are not allowed to voice your opinion again until next month.

Do we put a limit of how many times we are allowed to use the 1st Amendment? So, why have a limit on the 2nd?

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:55:39 +0000

Anonymous,
I posted the same question on this blog
several days ago — what happened with the charges
made by Aqueda Dominquez that she was roughed
up by a Manassas Park police officer at a traffic stop?
It got huge media play with the WaPo and DC TV
foaming with their Pavlovian “rednecks go nuts
near Manassas” stories — and then zip - nothing.
What is happening? Did she file charges? Is there
a court date? Or, as I think, was this all made up BS
to get attention for her and “the cause”?
Part of this was the march, gotta march,
from MP, through Manassas (with streets blocked
and MCPD providing security) to the Courthouse
for a candlelight vigil (for more drama, some of
of the marchers were barefoot “to share the pain
of Dominquez”). Did this all turn out to be a
publicity stunt?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:49:22 +0000

I’m one of those military families. While I certainly appreciate folks who stick up for “us and ours”, I think the premise is a bit far fetched. I haven’t heard of a single instance where a Military Family was put in danger because they weren’t “armed enough” (and that would have been “news” on base or off).

I would prefer those who support us to lobby for Veterans benefits rather than focus on “fringe issues”… but thanks for any support in any case.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:12:27 +0000

Emma, apparently there have been instances (if I read Greg’s post correctly) of under-armed military families being attacked in their Virginia homes while a spouse is deployed overseas and the number of weapons on hand at the time of the assault being inadequate to resist the attacks. I assume these were siege-like conditions, since most home defense scenarios with firearms usually involve one weapon and often do not even involve an exchange of gunfire. But, if, like these other Virginians, you found yourself with your children under siege for hours or days, by firearm wielding miscreants who figured out that your husband was off in Iraq, you might find that the two or three weapons that you acquired over the previous couple of months before his deployement would become useless (like if the barrels melt or warp or something), and that there would not be enough extra weapons to hand out to the kids. It could get really dicey. That’s no doubt why Mr. Lingamfelter thought this would be a necessary thing to put an end to these situations. I still am kicking myself, a rather avid reader of newspapers and consumer of other news media, for missing all this right here in the Old Dominion. It must be that the Mainstream Media are covering up these situations. Since they are targetted at military families whose spouses are on deployment, that’s why the bill is drafted the way it is.

Did I get that right?

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:21:49 +0000

What do you expect from Colgan?