Stay in the know! Sign up to get Fauquier County news updates delivered to your inbox.
Advertise on Fauquier Now!
Do you support Fauquier’s broad application of “land-use” tax breaks on rural land? Vote!
Free classifieds! Members can also post calendar events, news, opinions and more ... all for free! Register now!
Login · Forgot Your Password?
March 5, 2018 · OPINION

Will Del. Webert take action on gun safety?

The Plains
By Kathryn Kadilak
The Plains

I’ll admit it. I’m rapidly turning into a one issue voter.

My issue? Gun violence perpetrated by individuals who obtain assault-style weapons. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of innocents dying because of the “right” of individuals to own those weapons.

I come from a family of veterans going back many, many generations. My grandfather fought in World War I, my father in World War II, my brother was a Marine in peacetime, my nephew and niece served in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. They all owned guns at one time or another. Some of them still do and, in fact, are collectors.

I have no problem with folks owning handguns, hunting rifles (not repeaters) and shotguns. I know they can be lethal, too. However, they don’t have the destructive capacity to kill a multitude of victims in the course of a few seconds.

We must have sensible gun safety laws and it starts at the state level. This means our elected officials have to support common sense gun laws. Will they? Not if they are accepting what I think of as “blood money” from the National Rifle Association. Anyone who gives you money owns a piece of you, rely on it.

This brings me to our local representative for District 18, Del. Michael Webert. He has received $1,500 from the NRA – not a bucket of cash, but enough. He has a 100-percent, A+ rating from the NRA. He has helped to send the following proposals into the legislative graveyard: banning “bump stocks,” instituting universal background checks, banning high capacity magazines in excess of three magazines per registrant, requiring that guns be locked up in day-care centers (really?!), and forbidding the carrying of a semi-automatic weapon with more than 10 rounds in a public place.

Is he representing what you believe is right and sensible? If not, let him know. I will . . . over and over and over again until he exercises reason and common sense. If not, I’ll be part of the movement to vote him out of office next time around. You can count on me, Del. Webert, one way or another.
Member comments
To comment, please log in or register.
Uh....No · March 14, 2018 at 7:07 am
Am I sorry I offended you ........ Uh....No.

BJ · March 12, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Ew, butt-hurt? Where did you learn such nasty language? Didn't your Mama teach you better or is that where you learned it from Uh...No?
Uh....No · March 12, 2018 at 7:36 am
BJ, I don't profess to be "smarter" than anyone. You just said something "really" stupid. I merely pointed it out.
I laughed at myself when I made a mistake.
You, can't take it when the shoe is on the other foot and get all butt-hurt.
BJ · March 9, 2018 at 6:47 pm
Uh....No - Go "mute" yourself, another 4-lettered word you need to learn since you think you sound "smarter" than everyone. LOLOLOL......end of the road.
Uh....No · March 9, 2018 at 5:36 pm

Of course cars kill more ...... a lot more than the AR has in a crazy mans hands.

That's exactly why there are more ....... a lot more regulations and training required.

Wow, you must a really smart person.
Jim Griffin · March 9, 2018 at 11:18 am
RGJLA: I repeat that I propose no rules. I simply reject outright the claim that new rules inherently violate the Second Amendment. Even a conservative scholar like Justice Scalia agrees.

In addition, I am fine with your proposals. They strike me as sensible. My comments are directed towards those who decry any new rule or regulation as a Second Amendment infringement because they are not, according to the US Supreme Court, infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Finally, public policy is not logical. It may in fact be the opposite of logical. It is public sentiment, it is passion, it is not reason. Striking a reasonable balance is often the best we can do in a democracy where lawmakers and others react without proactive reasoning. This is the nature of We The People.

For the avoidance of doubt, let's be clear one more time: I have no proposal other than to respond to the call for regulation with reason and balance, acknowledging the public sentiment for action while understanding the limits of rule-making.

Failing to do so risks more serious losses to our freedom, which include repeal or worse still, a constitutional convention where all our liberties are at stake in a rewrite. I prefer measured response.
RGLJA · March 9, 2018 at 10:17 am
I say again... I'm against the rules you propose because they are ineffective and do not solve the problem. I already explained all that and provided evidence. And yet again, you wrote six paragraphs refusing to address the common sense solutions that I did mention which would be much more effective in solving the problem. It is not me that is close-minded or refusing to address the issues.
Eowynofrohan · March 9, 2018 at 8:57 am
Here are two pieces of common sense gun legislation that Webert and Freitas voted to kill in committee.
HB721 HB140
Firearm transfers; criminal history record information checks; penalty. Requires a background check for any firearm transfer and requires the Department of State Police to establish a process for transferors to obtain such a check from licensed firearms dealers. A transferor who fails to obtain a required background check and sells the firearm to another person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill exempts transfers between immediate family members, transfers that occur by operation of law, transfers by the executor or administrator of an estate or by the trustee of a testamentary trust, and temporary transfers that (i) occur within the continuous presence of the owner of the firearm; (ii) are necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury; (iii) occur at a shooting range, shooting gallery, or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class, a shooting competition, or any similar lawful activity; or (iv) are for the purpose of and while the transferee is engaged in hunting, trapping, or target shooting. The bill removes the provision that makes background checks of prospective purchasers or transferees at firearms shows voluntary.

Concealed handgun permits; demonstration of competence. Removes the option for concealed handgun permit applicants to demonstrate competence with a handgun by completing an electronic, video, or online course conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor. The bill does not affect any in-person means of satisfying the requirement to demonstrate competence with a handgun under current law.
Jim Griffin · March 9, 2018 at 8:50 am
RGJLA: I have no interest in whittling the Second Amendment. I simply read the US Sup Ct decisions on what is and is not permissible with regards to the Second Amendment.

To the contrary, I make no proposal banning any guns. Not my cause. However, I am open-minded to the proposals brought forward that comply with US Sup Ct decisions.

Why? Because closed-mindedness about the Second Amendment's implementation threatens its future, puts it in danger of repeal, just as would be closed-mindedness about the first, fourth and fifth amendments, vital to our freedom. I

If we were unwilling to so much as consider reasonable rules with regards to them, they would be changed or removed. I adore the Second Amendment and to the contrary of your false assertion I have made not a single proposal to ban any gun. If you think otherwise, please find the words I wrote that gave you a contrary impression.

And so I ask: Are you really against all rules and regulations on guns? I think that position threatens the Second Amendment more than does someone open-minded about the rules and regulations that are adopted.

Yes, it is radical to propose or even suggest let alone hint that the reasonable rules and regulations around the Second Amendment should not exist. Defending the status quo with its approach to rules is much more reasonable, as I feel sure the Sheriff will agree.
RGLJA · March 9, 2018 at 8:42 am
Jim is no dummy. He just thinks anyone that disagrees with him is a "radical", while he claims to be maintaining the status quo. Which is pretty funny for a guy trying to whittle away at the 2nd amendment just a wee bit further, while refusing to acknowledge the evidence that it wouldn't even be effective to do so.

If you really want to solve the problem, we are better off whittling away at our constitutional rights of due process, to allow law enforcement to preemptively deny insane people from having guns. At least that would be effective, but the left will howl all day long about it. We had a dozen chances to stop Cruz, and everyone tried to tell authorities he was crazy, but there was no action. That is the problem to be solved, but we are going to have to give law enforcement a lot more leeway to take action.
BJ · March 9, 2018 at 8:30 am
Just out of curiosity I'm going to throw a line out there and see what or who I catch. Vehicles have been brought up time and time again as killing more people then weapons/guns. That is true but this is also what I know as true:

1. Must take drivers training and test to get a license to drive a car.
2. Must keep that license current and will lose it if convicted of certain crimes.
3. Must be a certain age to get a drivers license.
4. Vehicles must be registered, titled, and insured.
5. Vehicle must be inspected annually (in Virginia).
6. Personal Property taxes must be paid annually (Fauquier County). (Guns wouldn't full under this category at this time but vehicles do).

Now, I might have missed something here, pretty sure those of you out there will let me know. My question is: why can't many of these same rules be applied to the purchase and ownership of a gun(s)? This shouldn't be a problem for legal, law abiding gun owners, and in my mind would prevent those that don't meet this criteria from getting legal weapons. Illegal weapons is a whole other issue.

Blaine Johnson
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 4:51 pm
Agreed .... hell i'll laugh at that with ya!
BJ · March 8, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Uh-Oh are too funny! Telling Jim Griffin to read the dictionary when you didn't know the difference between "moot" and "mute". LOLOL, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 4:35 pm

Now there you go bringing in a woman's choice on her body again. I don't have a problem with any woman deciding what she feels is best for her. Period. I do not tow that part of the conservative line and never have. But that's not part of this discussion.

I also did and do not argue that a mediator is NOT a judge or decision maker. I only argued that they are an "arbitrator" and qualified it by definition. Period.

I don't hate you, Jim. But your writings, although seemingly educated, float back and forth like an empty swing set on playground in last Friday's wind.

Nonetheless "reasonable" regulation does NOT include attacking 2% of an issue the Democrats have fudged the numbers on to make the AR sporting rifle into something it's not when the hard facts prove otherwise.

Frustrated? Perhaps so at the idiots that believe the fake news and how they are so blind they can't even recognize their own party brain washing them. I guess they'll figure it out after it's too late.

Taking legal firearms that are not a significant part of the homicide stats, from those individuals that are not part the problem, will do NOTHING but ignite more
divide and not solve this problem.

The anti's will never pull 340 million firearms from the homes in America I don't believe.

The legal law abiding, gun loving, CHP holding, NRA, VCDL members and US citizens that believe in the Constitution, will survive another weapon ban should it come and with whatever bs it may have attached to it just to prove our point again, again and again.

I went and purchased another AR yesterday, some more ammo and 4 more years with the NRA that did not kill anyone, so I guess that is one more rifle they can't ban and more money for the NRA.

I hope for one of these dummies that I'm in 7-11 or somewhere of the sort and they are wearing some liberal slogan or if I even know you are a liberal anti person if an assailant comes in to do harm.

I will retreat as training indicates avoidance, whenever possible, may be the better survival tactic. That means I won't bother trying to save their ass.

I'm with you on the rule of law and on community but the fake news dummies are frustrating yes.

So if the Chinese are correct then we may be friends.

Oh and I don't drink at pubs anyway because I may be responsibly carrying. That's the rule of law in this state. grin

BJ · March 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre is making a killing.

The gun group leader saw a jump of more than $4 million in compensation between 2014 and 2015, according to a tax form obtained by the Washington Post.

The NRA also saw a spike of $26 million in revenue during that time, shooting its total gross revenue past $336 million, the documents show.

According to its latest 990 tax form, LaPierre made $5,110,985 in annual compensation between Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2015.
Jim Griffin · March 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm
And I will add this: I am not the agent of change here. I am defending the community in which we live and the way we do things, the rule of law as enforced by the sheriff and written in supreme court decisions.

The radicals who want change are those who decry reasonable regulations with regards to guns (or women's medical choices). I am defending that which has been the law of the land for decades, and indeed Republicans across the country are standing up for reasonable regulation. Florida, yesterday, and Trump is talking just this way.

I detect frustration. Virginia is changing. It is now a Blue state. This community is changing -- the upcoming congressional race will be tighter than the one before it, if current polls hold.

Still, we all drink in the same pubs, eat in the same restaurants. We chose the same area to live. We should get along better. I like the way the Chinese say your critic is your friend! Thanks to all of you!
Jim Griffin · March 8, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Here's the difference: I don't need to look it up. I've actually worked with them. They needn't be neutral. A mediator does not issue a decision, as is required of a judge or arbitrator. A mediator, like a salesperson, tries to get the parties to yes. Pure persuasion, no judgments issued, no decisions made. Mediators trade in settlements, judges and arbitrators in substituting their judgment for that of the parties.

Turn the question around -- if a strongly held opinion in one direction is a disqualification in your mind, what then is a strongly held opinion the other direction? Should anyone with an opinion on guns be precluded from mediating any dispute involving guns?

In fact, you can't find people without opinions to serve as mediators. They come into practice through advocacy. Ask the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service, which I know well.

Another repeat, the opinion piece written by a ProPublica writer that ran in the NYT but was not written by a NYT writer. Attribute it to the NYT if you like, it was not written by a NYT writer. It ran in an opinion slot in the Sunday Review.

The author here is clearly an intelligent woman. She articulates a viewpoint that is different from yours, or mine. That is her exercise of her 1A rights. Why attack her for it, especially when your anonymous claim is asymmetrical (cannot be repeated on you)? Isn't that unfair, calling her out from the shadows?

Am I supposed to respond in kind and tell you you should be more educated? No, I will not, because we simply disagree. It doesn't make you "not smart enough" or devoid of "some real facts."

That's the shame of these anonymous comments in our community publication. We are all neighbors with many different opinions, but rock throwers condemn those who simply voice disagreement. It's a stain on our otherwise fine community to have people suggest others -- simply for disagreement on politics -- move away, have false drug tips to the DEA, boycott the paper, that without so much as meeting them you can be sure they are *exactly* the kind of person who should not have guns due to mental illness.

It is frankly disgusting and speaks for itself.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 2:34 pm
JG, "nor do they arbitrate" you say?


While indeed not a "judge" or a "decision" maker, a mediator is indeed an arbitrator.


a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.

synonyms: arbitrator, arbiter, negotiator, conciliator, peacemaker, go-between, middleman, intermediary, moderator, intervenor, intercessor, broker, honest broker, liaison officer;

You sounded more educated than that. Use some of that and read the dictionary before you post.

NY Times even admitted to the "Assault Weapon Myth"

The actual total impact of assault type weapons in violent crime homicide represents less than 2% avg of total homicides.

And the anti-gun public is focused on this instead of something that might really have an impact like mental health why? Because the author was not smart enough to go read some real facts.

That's my point.
Jim Griffin · March 8, 2018 at 1:47 pm
NNT: Like Trump, you are the gift keeps on giving. The more you write, the less I need to do so. No wonder you stay anonymous! Like the notice above the comment entry box reminds, anonymous comments lose credibility.

The hypocrisy is rich! You complain about personal insults when you hide and snipe, even claim to know who should have guns, a repeat performance for you, just like grandma's rocker or your suggesting a false tip to the DEA.

My point: The good woman who wrote the opinion piece about which we are commenting does not deserve attacks on her decision to exercise her First Amendment rights. She is a member of this community with whom you simply disagree on a political issue. Those of us who stand behind our words are subject to outrageous attacks from the likes of you, all designed to discourage us from exercising our First Amendment rights when we simply articulate our opinions with which you disagree.

Mind you, I support the Second Amendment and stand behind every word written about it by Justice Scalia, all of which reinforces that reasonable regulations on who can have which guns and where they can have them do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. To your quotes from Scalia, I will remind you that Scalia believed 2A applied to those types of guns in use at the time the constitution was written. His words, not mine.
nonewtaxes · March 8, 2018 at 1:28 pm

You are exactly the type of person many are talking about. You insanely link being anonymous with being a coward. Worse, you make an association between the beltway killers and being anonymous. You are exactly the type of person that shouldn't own any guns. When somebody's personal choice offends you so much that you have to associate them with killers you've got mental health issues.

Not only do anonymous postings annoy you but you are usually the one who fires first the personal insult especially when you are confronted with facts that differ from your fiction.

Given that you own guns, you get unreasonably upset when people post anonymously, and that you like to make personal attacks against people I find it safer to be anonymous with nut cases like you.

Of course if the IRS was apolitical I wouldn't need to be concerned about getting audited because of my political views. If the OPM would have used some common sense all of my personal information would not be on servers in China.

Its the internet little jimmy. Being anonymous is just a matter of being safe. If I claimed that 1+1 = 2 what would it matter if my name was anonymous, Joe Smith, or Adam West. You concentrate on the messenger and not the message.

I also offer this for your consideration. We put a rocker and a gun in grandmas attic. Each month we check on them. If the gun got up and killed someone I give you $1,000. If it didn't, you give me $1,000. Lets do this every month until you go broke.
Jim Griffin · March 8, 2018 at 12:04 pm
RGJLA: Yes, fine, focus on the person. Do you apply the same reasoning that you apply to guns to drugs, narcotics, alcohol abuse? To bombs, silencers, machine guns? Do you apply your reasoning to all weapons and guns -- permit them all, whatever, focus on the person? No age limits, no weapon limits?

My point: This is not a linear exercise with clear yes and no options. As a democracy we seek balanced approaches that appeal to the citizenry. The public wants reasonable regulation in these instances.

Consider by itself the bump stock issue: Stocks don't kill people, they aren't even guns, but POTUS wants action, says he won't wait for Congress. After years of criticizing Obama for doing the same, Trump is feeding on outrage from the public in deciding to ban them without legislation.

Do you really counsel that we should walk completely away from regulating mechanisms in deference to a total focus on motives? Are you consistent in your approach across the range of evils we face?

How then do we overcome the issues we confront in our fine constitution? Focusing on people -- you refer to them as insane killers, as if they were clearly labeled -- has a high threshold to clear in the rights of citizens, although again POTUS says take them anyway, oblivious to the constitutional rights of people to own guns, a right I support.
Jim Griffin · March 8, 2018 at 11:45 am
Plays out regularly here: Anonymous commenters slander the good name of those who properly identify. Uh-No is just the latest example of an anonymous coward attacking someone willing to use their name in responsible discourse, pinning a name to a job in an attempt to silence someone with whom they simply disagree, an ad hominem attack to substitute for reason and dialogue.

Uh-No has no idea what a mediator does. Mediators do not judge nor do they arbitrate. They do not make decisions. They needn't be neutrals.

This publication makes clear above the comment box that anonymous comment lacks credibility. It is not respectful in any way and it shows in the comments it produces. It is the rhetorical equivalent of sniping.

Consider the cowardice and criminality of the Beltway Snipers, then think about the anonymous commenters here. They are cut of the same cloth.
RGLJA · March 8, 2018 at 11:37 am
BJ, I fully agree with you on the Gun Violence Restraining Order reforms. I absolutely agree this is the right approach to the problem. FOCUS ON THE KILLER. Do whatever is necessary to detect him, deter him, distract him, inhibit him in any way possible. Banning so-called assault weapons has already been tried, and it failed miserably. In the Parkland case, if law enforcement had acted to deter Cruz when we had the chance, we could have saved those children. Banning guns is useless. It's worse than useless. Focus on stopping the insane killers.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 10:41 am
NY Times even admitted to the "Assault Weapon Myth"

Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 9:56 am
VA Delgate Nick Freitas on common sense discussion verses a false narrative on this subject:

Nonetheless again we are are entitled to or opinions.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 9:25 am
Kathryn Kadilak of the Plains, Va
Piedmont Dispute Resolution Center. Center.

Public info.

Nonetheless we are all entitled to our opinions and what we personally believe respectfully.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 9:17 am
Oh so why has violent crime been on a steady decline in the US since the last AR ban was lifted?? Well Cruz was reported ........... that worked well didn't it? The military failed to report another ............ that also worked well right?
Sorry, but I believe your point fails again.

Don't get me wrong, if those two "mental issue" safeguards had worked we would have had two less incidents. BUT they failed.

Fix those and leave the rest of the law abiding citizens with legal firearms and they us them legal alone and I'm sure the NRA and our pro gun state delegates will be happy to discuss. In fact if you fix those I doubt there will be a need for a discussion on the AR15 or shot guns the author's lack of research suggests.

But I believe the author's public opinion here our anyone else that works for the Piedmont Dispute Resolution Center, that has publicly stated an anti-gun posture in any public media or social media must recuse themselves from handling any cases that involve anything to do with firearms. I don'think we could expect them to mediate both sides when some may have blinders on.

Glad I don't need the PDRC mediating anything I'm involved in as a legal firearm owner ..............
BJ · March 8, 2018 at 8:10 am
Uh...No - really it's banned, well duh to you, because it isn't stopping anyone that I can tell. And it's not "mute" it's "moot". You're the one that needs to be mute.

One policy idea, though, is being met with rare consensus by both advocates for gun control and gun rights: gun violence restraining orders (GVRO), in which law enforcement agencies, families, and household members can quickly remove firearms from individuals deemed unstable or unfit to own firearms. Americans interested in preventing another gun-related tragedy should know that this common-sense tool is working in California.
Uh....No · March 8, 2018 at 7:57 am
Hey BJ, murder is already illegal and banned ...... duh.

A chair with electric to it, a rope fashioned in a hangman's noose and a needle on a plunger device to inject something are all designed for killing as well.

BUT, one can legally own all of these items. However if they break the rule of law using them we attack the person breaking the law. We have the rule of law. Duh. Your point is mute .............
BJ · March 8, 2018 at 7:04 am
nonewtaxes - Guns were designed to kill. The 2nd Amendment give you the right to bear arms, but not the right to kill. Cars were designed to get us from point A to point B, unfortunately through accident or negligence, millions have died. Way before the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were written there was a law of the land that many followed. It is called the Commandments which include #6 - thou shalt not murder. Now this should be an issue for those out there calling themselves Christians, follow the age old law of the Bible or the law of the land with the Constitution. Which law takes precedence in your life? How about we ban killing period?
Lee Smith · March 8, 2018 at 4:44 am
AdamCassandra wrote (see very first comment way down at the bottom):

"Planned Parenthood has killed millions."

In the referenced article, he also states " January 22, 2013 marks 40 years since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on the federal level. Since then, roughly 54.5 million human lives have been lost with the full blessing of the federal government and many of our fellow citizens. We observed a national moment of silence for the Newtown victims on the one-week anniversary of their deaths, but if we observed a minute of silence for each life lost through abortion, we would be silent for over 100 years."

Adam speaks to our society that has a culture of death for entertainment and personal convenience.

We have a culture of death in killing babies.

We have a culture of death in Hollywood. Just watch the shows on every day.
They promote killing and mayhem by doing wrong for a "cause".

All life is precious.
Lee Smith
Eowynofrohan · March 8, 2018 at 12:35 am
RGLGA I believe the title of the piece is will Delegate Webert take action on gun safety. And the question posed was ‘Is he representing what you believe is right and sensible?”
RGLJA · March 8, 2018 at 12:08 am
Eowynofrohan, I think you may be missing the point of the debate. There is no common sense gun legislation being proposed. Not one of the items mentioned in this article would have had any impact whatsoever on the Parkland shooting; Bump stocks?... not used. Universal background checks?... he passed his check. High capacity magazines?... not used. Limit to three magazines?...unenforceable and he didn't even need that many anyway. Guns locked in day care?...irrelevant. Forbidding 10 round magazines in public?... he would ignore that. Banning AR-15s?....he could use any other similar semi-auto rifle or even pistols, just as Seung-Hui Cho did with even more tragic results in Blacksburg. None of these laws would have stopped killers like Cruz or Cho because they are irrelevant to the crime and unenforceable with a committed killer. Stop worrying about guns and focus on the killer. Cruz could have been stopped a dozen different ways if warnings had been heeded, and schools were adequately protected. We need far more serious proposals to solve the school shooting problem.
brianroeder · March 7, 2018 at 11:14 pm
Mike is a good man and he should work to really truly help enact reasonable limits on extreme gun advocacy that makes the slaughter possible. If he does not i will be front and center working with other caring and influential local citizens to unseat him for someone who will. Simple fact. Mike - I am happy to meet and talk about this. Help me help you help us.
Eowynofrohan · March 7, 2018 at 11:14 pm
I think people might be missing the point of this opinion piece, which is to question Delegate Michael Webert's voting record on common sense gun legislation. Mr. Webert sits on the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Sub-Committee. He has voted to kill every piece of proposed gun legislation in committee. From my understanding, the definition of public safety is to prevent and protect from events that could endanger the safety of the general public. So how exactly is Delegate Michael Webert ensuring the general public's safety by voting to kill every piece of gun legislation in committee. And let me add to that, how does killing all of these bills help law enforcement to do their jobs and keep them safe. We deserve better than Mr. Webert's voting record.
Mulletmom · March 7, 2018 at 8:13 pm
Thank you for this excellent letter. Webert is my delegate and I would really like to see him work with us in earnest to find common ground. But if he won’t, we must vote him out.
Tell It Like It Is · March 7, 2018 at 6:48 pm
Oh yes, they want ALL the guns!! They are just looking for a starting foot in the door .........

Kay my four year did not and would not have messed with a firearm because they were properly educated. If they had then it would have been my fault for not properly educating. That's personal responsibility.

HB929 does not sound that unreasonable as you state other than it perhaps may have had some liberal pork and beans attached to it and thus why it failed.

Background checks exist, reporting platforms for unstable people exist but they were not used or acted upon. Why? Well that's an entire other subject.

"Protecting people"? If someone wants to off themselves then that is not my problem and they are going to get it done one way or the other. Mental illness problem.
"Accidents" are a matter of personal responsibility.

Why are you separating "mass shootings" from "murder" from "homicides"? They are one in the same. Rifles are the number five weapon of choice per recent FBI reports I've seen. Fists, knives and blunt force objects all rate higher in violent crime use. Funny you did not mention any of those.

Nonetheless take the AR-15 from the "rifle category and then tell us what exceptionally low number of "homicides" this rifle was actually involved in compared to the total number of real "homicides". Leave out the suicides, the accidental discharges, the justified police shootings and everything else that is not a real homicide. When you get this "real number" homicides the AR-15 or AR -10 rifles have been use on that we should be basing our discussion on let me know. I won't be holding my breath because that number on this rifle's usage in homicide is the one you don't want to recognize and no one in the anti-gun culture wants to either because it does not amount to anything significant worth a discussion.

You have shown your true colors by including things that are not really homicides in an attempt to commit the rifle you question to confiscation. You can't and won't discuss that number because your argument falls flat on it's face.

Ya know this is the second anti-gun person today that walked away from a conversation that unless the AR15 goes away they can't deal with the other real issue of good parenting, mental health, and other governmental platforms that are in place and have failed and the fact that removing this rifle is not going to solve a thing.

Bye KayG, thank you for your comments and finally showing your real liberal confiscation colors. Come on back when you have "that" number.

nonewtaxes · March 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
kay g.

Even though both guns and cars are regulated, both can kill. Ask the French. Should cars be banned? Should pressure cookers be banned? You have an irrational bias based on misinformation. You only see what you want to see.

Why would you ban guns and not cars if you want to keep kids safe? Cars kills many more kids than guns. It makes no sense to ban guns but not cars if kid safety is the goal.

While I not fear the government coming for me if'n we allow an infringement on our rights where will it stop? First its automatic rifles, then semi-auto rifles then pistols. First you won't be able to say bad things about your neighbor and then the police and then the government.

If yo don''t think the government is coming for you then why are there so many cases at the supreme court? The supreme court puts limits on government.
RGLJA · March 7, 2018 at 5:28 pm
As I suspected, Kay G is not even serious about a ban on "assault rifles" as a solution. She cites the Australian history of mandatory confiscation of guns to disarm the entire population, which is the true goal of leftist/Democrats. That won't work in the US, and it wouldn't be desirable even if it were possible. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the right of every citizen to defend themselves against all manner of threats, including government tyranny.
Kay G. · March 7, 2018 at 5:28 pm
"There is plenty of well thought out gun legislation already in place."

Let's get real. What was rescinded, before it could even be enacted, just after the 1/20/17 inauguration? An Obama-era rule that would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales (to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution”) by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. "The Obama rule would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. It was crafted as part of Obama’s efforts to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 massacre of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut."

There’s plenty more that is sensible (not talking about weapons bans) that could also be enacted. How is it that Bill HB929 didn’t make sense? It required firearms and other weapons and ammunition in a licensed family daycare home be stored in a locked closet, cabinet or container during hours of operation, and that the weapons be stored unloaded and apart from the ammo. HOW IS THAT NOT REASONABLE? What if it had been YOUR 4-year old that found the loaded weapon and shot and killed himself? IT GOT VOTED DOWN!

Yes, unfortunately there are “system” failures, just like with rules governing the road and much else. But without the system in the first place, and tweaks and changes made as needed, then the failures become omissions, and to a certain extent our legislators and those who elect them become complicit. We will never achieve perfection in protecting people, and this is not just mass murder, but suicides, homicides, accidents, domestic violence… But that shouldn’t be the reason not to take reasonable steps to do so.

Tell I Like It Is and Co – you’re over the top and jumping the rails. I'm signing off from this discussion.

Tell It Like It Is · March 7, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Well it's even worse that as some federal agencies in the event of a national emergency, may be authorized to enter and legally seized any pepper supplies anyone may have.

Anyone that does not fear big government should take a good look around. Many of our politicians do not have our best interest in mind.

citizen observer · March 7, 2018 at 4:51 pm
Didn't the Democrats pass the ACA, which was going to provide healthcare to all economic levels? I know my rates have skyrocketed since it passed. I guess Obama decided it's more important to provide free services for illegal aliens than our existing lower class citizens. Either way federal tax monies should not be given to any organization that is making profits from selling baby parts.

Kay- "You think the government is going to send an armed contingent to attack you in your home?"
When you have a President like Obama that:
-opens a border to gangs to run illegal guns, drugs, and violent felons freely into our country.
-welcomes in terrorist organizations and frees terrorists from Gitmo, who want to decimate us.
-weaponizes federal agencies like the EPA so they can forcibly take land from ranchers.
-runs guns to cartels to be used to kill americans.
-politicizes mass shooting to take away guns instead of fixing the real, underlying problems.
-And we have a corrupt Congress unable to function.
Yes, it probably is only a matter of time until government agents start attacking political and other dissidents.
Tell It Like It Is · March 7, 2018 at 4:45 pm
A v8 car assaults and kills as well. But in that case we only attack the human in control, and thus should take only the same posture with every other inanimate object that requires human interface. The end.
Tell It Like It Is · March 7, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Kay G,

As would be a racy fast "looking" car with 3 different engine options 4,6,8 cylinders. I don't see you wanting those banned. The magazine is merely an optional part, sorry.

When some go to the range they simply like the convenience of NOT reloading so often, and none of these people shot anyone or brake any laws.

There is plenty of well thought out gun legislation already in place.
There was local law enforcement on site, it failed.
There were plenty of warning signals for this person as well as in some other cases to be reported as a mental problem at the county/state and federal law enforcement levels, it failed.

Now if all that keeps failing, I hope you never need any of things to have worked.

Me? I'm not going to wait because I've been drawn on and more than once. Have you? Fortunately I'm alive to still be able to discuss this.

You? Stay away from scary Halloween party costumes OK!
Kay G. · March 7, 2018 at 4:36 pm
There's no hysteria about it. Ask the Australians.
RGLJA · March 7, 2018 at 4:27 pm
These hyper emotional arguments about "assault weapons" being "cousins" to military weapons is nonsense. They LOOK like military weapons but they operate like civilian semi-auto rifles, and of course either are deadly. It is nonsense to talk about one wound being worse than another wound when the killer is in the same room as the victims. Do you really want to compare wound photos of Parkland victims versus Blacksburg victims? How ridiculous. The semi-auto pistols in Blacksburg were every bit as deadly as the AR-15 in Parkland. The gun is not even remotely related to the real problems, which mostly involve the killer behind the gun. Banning semi-auto rifles is not a serious solution to any aspect of the real problems we have with school shootings. Thank God we have Michael Webert in the House of Delegates with the good sense to reject all this hysterical gun ban legislation which does more harm than good.
Jim Griffin · March 7, 2018 at 3:54 pm
BJ: A bit of additional background. The Irish Republican Army considered itself outgunned and relied beginning in the early 1970s on US-acquired civilian versions of Armalite rifles, especially the AR-15.

When there is a premium assigned to a civilian weapon for killing soldiers (in the Irish case, British soldiers), the American AR-15 answers the call:
Kay G. · March 7, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Thank you, B.J. And for your "additional" comment as well!
BJ · March 7, 2018 at 3:26 pm
nonewtaxes and citizen observer - distracted driving is a problem, a deadly one, a woman driving down Meetze headed my way had me seeing my life flash before my eyes (adults are just as guilty or more so then the teenagers) yesterday.

As to abortions, if you don't approve then why aren't you pushing for better healthcare and access to birth control for women and men, at all economic levels. And don't tell me try abstinence, only works for people without hormones, genitals, or a partner.
BJ · March 7, 2018 at 3:13 pm
Some people—even some within the firearms industry and hunting and target-shooting communities—remain misinformed about AR-style modern sporting rifles, thinking that the AR prefix stands for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” It means neither.
The AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that in the 1950s developed this style of rifle, which eventually became both the military’s M16 rifle and the civilian semi-automatic sporting rifle known as the AR-15, or modern sporting rifle. This civilian rifle, manufactured by many companies today, is confused with its military cousin because it looks similar. The civilian version, however, is limited to firing one round with each pull of the trigger, just as other semi-automatics operate. that's where the "bump stocks" come in to play to make them fire more bullets with one pull of the trigger.
This Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) can be called whatever trips your trigger, but it ASSAULTS everything it hits, quite devastatingly in fact. So call it what you want, it's still a cousin to a weapon developed for the military, and is being used to kill people in a non-war zone.
Blaine Johnson
Facebook comments
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from via email.
Thursday, May 24
Sun shines on commencement exercises at Falcon Field; graduates earn $1.95 million in scholarships
Thursday, May 24
Chris Cochrane, head of Highland School security, will challenge Bob Mosier in June 2019 primary
Thursday, May 24
1993 — Former school board chairman dies, town hires planner, quarry shelves expansion, car sales up and spring clothing sale
More Fauquier news
© Copyright 2011-2018

50 Culpeper Street, Suite 3
Warrenton, Virginia 20187
Crime Log
Add Your News
The Big Picture
Ellen’s Kitchen
and Garden

Real Estate
For Sale
Legal Notices
Post an Ad
Terms of Service