Poll Question

Posted to: News

Should the General Assembly overturn the one-handgun-a-month law?

Disclaimer: This is an unscientific sampling of users.

Great news yesterday from

Submitted by Truth-Freedom on Tue, 02/07/2012 at 12:11 pm.

Great news yesterday from Richmond. In 1993, Virginia legislators copied a "model" one-gun-a-month statute enacted in South Carolina in 1975. South Carolina then repealed its gun rationing law in 2004.

This statute only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens since criminals, by definition, violate laws — especially silly gun control laws. Soon, only three states -- California, Maryland and New Jersey -- will have gun rationing statutes.

Since when did it become the role of government to dictate to law-abiding citizens an arbitrary amount of a legal product they may purchase in an arbitrary period of time. This issue is less about firearms and more about freedom versus a Nanny State. Should government determine and decide our needs?

Who does this benefit?

Submitted by elguapo on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 7:42 pm.

Please explain to me the need for buying more than one hand gun per month... If you want a hand gun for self defense, wouldn't one or maybe two suffice? Most even keeled people can see both sides of the guns rights argument. To want to own a gun I can understand, but why isn't that enough? Does it make me a left wing liberal if I think there is no reasonable need to buy more than one gun a month. I mean does anyone really even need to buy one gun a year?

In a free society, there

Submitted by jeffk67836 on Tue, 02/14/2012 at 5:49 pm.

In a free society, there should not be a restriction on wanting to buy an item that is legally available for purchase.

Using your criteria, we can suggest being able to purchase only one cigarette per month should be enacted. After all, we've proven that smoking can lead to one's death.

Does that work for you? Does it benefit society?

Rarely do folks truly understand that inanimate objects cause no crime unto themselves.

Cars do not run over people. Drunk/drugged drivers operating them do the damage.

Firearms unto themselves do not kill or maim. Immoral people using them cause the damage.

If you want to help fix the problem(s), start by becoming a contributing member of society and make a difference.

Huh? Just the facts!

Submitted by billj10746 on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 7:39 pm.

"As long as the profits are there, who cares if a straw buyer obtains dozens of guns a month for Mexican drug lords or anyone else." Actually that was the ATF that sold the guns to the drug lords. Don't you read the papers?

Yes it was the ATF that made

Submitted by rlesley74 on Tue, 02/07/2012 at 8:42 pm.

Yes it was the ATF that made that snaffu, but the good ole Prezy Obama signed off on it before they could proceed

Gun Control - Lift the once a month restriction

Submitted by Halfhitch663 on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 5:11 pm.

I find it incomprehensible that liberals can't grasp the fact that criminals will always have the ability to acquire guns no matter what "LAWS" are put into place. Being able to acquire one, two or twenty guns a month will not alter or retard this fact. Those actions (Gun Control Laws) only disable the "LAW ABIDING" citizen from being able to protect themselves and their families IF the need arose. If you don't believe me, check out the statistics. The more "Gun Control", the higher the crime rate; Chicago, New York, Baltimore some examples to name a few. As an American I have the right to "bear arms"; a right I take very seriously. Don't question my "right to bear arms" and I won't question your stupidity not too.

Where did they get data that

Submitted by seitzjus on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 10:58 am.

Where did they get data that only being able to buy one gun a month decreases crime? The law makes no difference whatsoever since you aren't going to be more likely to commit a crime with two guns instead of one. These are more rules where they pull out these arbitrary numbers with one gun a month and have no supporting data that it will make any difference and all that is accomplished is one more layer of bureaucracy. Thank you politicians, sometimes the best action is none at all.

The reason for the law initially was that Virginia had been

Submitted by open minded on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 12:56 pm.

proven as a gun runners paradise. Individuals were coming to Virginia, making multiple purchases, and then reselling them in States with more stringent gun laws. Whether or no the law is still necessary, I have not seen new statistics or facts. However, it was a definite confirmed fact that legally purchased guns in Virginia, were being used in large numbers in crimes in other cities.

The law was meant not so much to limit or prevent gun crime in Virginia, it seems, but to do so in other states.

How many guns a month?

Submitted by Donkeyottie on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 12:43 am.

6, 16 or 60? Right wing Republicans value the profits of the gun manufacturers and the NRA over all else. They are their real constituents. As long as the profits are there, who cares if a straw buyer obtains dozens of guns a month for Mexican drug lords or anyone else.

Psst! Hey buddy....wanna buy some guns from the trunk of my car tonight?

Guns to Mexico?

Submitted by andyu90644 on Mon, 02/06/2012 at 11:09 am.

Pres. Obama's Justice Dept. has taken over the sending guns to mexico. The average law abiding person no longer has to do it. Isn't government wonderful.