I like the idea of a Lieberman "Award"  I do not know what got into Virginia State Senator John Edwards.  He's a good guy and usually votes the right way, not the right-wing way.

And we not only vote, we organize!

Edwards has been quite supportive of the GLBT community over the years.  If I remember correctly, EV may have even awarded him a Legislator of the Year type of award not too long ago.  Just FYI...

but this was egregious.  This district has voted for Kaine/Byrne/Deeds and Webb by double digits.

What was bizarre, I think, was his explanation for his vote being the "culture" of his community.  WTF?

You JUST DON'T GET IT.

Sen. Edwards is from Southwest VA. Plus he really believes in the 2nd Amendment, as I do. He is representing what the people of his district believe. The district he represents is much more than just the home of VT. It is also home to several large gun shows. He is doing his job.

You are wrong about this bill and I think that more people who read this blog should speak up and say what I know them to believe. I am not going to be bullied by this nonsense and Sen. Edwards won't either. So go ahead and use your silly little "local Lieberman" title. You will be marginalized just like the Ned Nuts.

of people believe we should close the gun show loophole.  How on earth can it be that the 10% tiny minority can defeat the 90% overwhelming majority on this?  And how can you possibly argue that this issue "causes Democrats to lose."  I see absolutely no evidence presented to support that argument, and the 90% figure arguing in the other direction.

I don't care if 99% of people support it. Until I get promises from every one of those 99% that they won't consider the Dem to be anti-gun. I won't believe that.

Also, where were those people sampled from. I bet it wasn't within Sen. Edwards home district.

polls by the same crew of pollsters that predicted an Obama blowout in New Hampshire? I've heard polls ranging from 70-90%, so a link to the public opinion polls on the issue for Virginia would help support that argument.

That sounded harsher than I meant it to, given I know you support Obama.

No worries though, I like the three presidential candidates equally, each for different reasons.

Just because pollsters screwed up NH, I don't believe we should totally abandon public opinion polling.  In this case, the polls are overwhelming -- 90%+ Americans favor closing the gun-show loophole.  The other 10% are busy on the blogs, but that doesn't make them anywhere close to a majority, or even a significant minority.

I must have missed something here - could you please explain how closing the gun show loophole is infringing upon our rights?  

I'd understand your position if the bill were talking about a handgun ban or something similar, but this is far far from that sort of restriction.  What is it specifically that you don't like and what specifically does the bill contain that goes against our rights?  

And if it does go directly against the Constitution in some way, why are you worried at all?  A quick trip to the courts and the bill would be toast.

I don't think it infringes on rights because I don't usually buy from individuals at gun shows.I have pretty much every kind of gun I want right now.  But I am still a gun owner and am deeply suspicious of this type of law.

The reason why I have a political objection is that it totally screws us with independents. It doesn't matter what the truth about this bill is. The political reality is that it is a total disaster in a general election. Why don't you try to get some Democrats elected in a rural red state area and then come back and talk to me about this issue.

I know that I tend toward hyperbole and go on a rant sometimes, but this is one issue that I know well and I know that part of the state VERY well. Sen. Edwards was representing his constituents in voting that way. It is the way that most of them believe.  

It's more liberal than Charlottesville.

Asscovering is no excuse on this one.

Roanoke City went for Jim Webb by 16 points, and for Tim Kaine by 26 points.  C-ville went for Webb by 56 points and for Kaine by 61 points (!!!).  So, yeah, Roanoke City's strongly Democratic, but C-ville is more "liberal" by a wide, wide margin.  Having said that, I agree with your point on Edwards.

your continued support.

;)

And that makes his vote extremely insensitive.

"The reason why I have a political objection is that it totally screws us with independents. It doesn't matter what the truth about this bill is."

Whoa, Willie, so politicians should just follow the herd mentality even if the herd is wrong, or worse, pathological?  

Like others here, I have no problem with people owning guns for sport, but I don't agree that the 2nd Amendment bans every reasonable, common-sense regulation of guns conceivable.  We regulate everything else -- cars, food, drugs, toys -- why should guns be completely exempt? It just doesn't make any sense.  And if a fair number of the common people are indeed brainwashed, then we need better education, not capitulation to their insanity.

Now I KNOW where you guys are coming from.

I will own as many guns as I want. BIG guns. Guns with HUGE magazines. Guns that will shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger. Sometimes I will just go shoot the hell out of some paper targets just for the hell of it.

None of these things makes me pathological or crazy or insane. The very fact that you think these things make me crazy is why I will never regard anything you say with any kind of respect. You. are. an. IDIOT.

If you guys want to ban me for calling names then let it be. But I am not going to sit here and let silly people say stuff like that without a reply.

WS, I don't know if you're actually certifiable, that's for a health professional to determine, and your appreciation of firearms is in no way an indicator.

If, however, you have been hospitalized for say obsessive desire to kill everyone in your classroom, I want someone to know that before they sell you a bunch of guns.  I want that and 90% of Virginia wants that.

Playing the victim is just a pitiful political tactic. Have you no pride?

(are frothing-at-the-mouth tirades all ever your write, by the way?) have to do with closing the "gun show loophole?"  So much sound and fury over...so little.  Why?

but not about the political aspects.  It's your one line "But I am still a gun owner and am deeply suspicious of this type of law." that really gets to the heart of the problem.

Stick with me for moment while I indulge in a slight tangent, then I'll bring it all together...

All of us, as citizens of the United States, have a responsibility to keep an eye on our government, at the federal, state, and local levels.  While some will be distrustful of anything about the government, I prefer to think all of us should be wary of what it does.  Or doesn't do.  The citizenry must be ever vigilant and always questioning of the government's actions and inactions.

With that responsibility in mind, I think it's a good thing when we question any laws regarding something things we prize deeply - in this particular case it's gun owners love of firearms and a gun show loophole law.  

Where I believe the heart of the problem (in general - I don't mean you specifically) becomes visible is where you say you're deeply suspicious of the laws.  You are certainly not alone in the world of gun owners and such laws - and deeply suspicious is tame compared to how many feel.  There is an air of near paranoia swirling about any mixture of government and guns - total distrust and extreme negative reactions to almost anything except the removal of gun laws.

And it's no surprise there is this kind of gut reaction.  Organized groups such as the NRA very much want their members and fellow gun owners to be paranoid.  Suspicious isn't very strong and wary is downright useless when trying to work members up about fighting for "their rights".  So the NRA and like minded groups both directly and indirectly encourage a paranoia of the government and gun laws.  They want gun owners to think that every law or restriction or regulation or registration is a slippery slope.  They play to gun owners worst fears and intentionally keep said owners on edge - just to make sure there is fervent support to fight any gun legislation.

As I said earlier, all of us should be wary of what the government does.  And we must take action when the government goes too far.  But when the starting point of any gun legislation discussion is an extreme mistrust or (in most cases) a flat out "No - I'm against it", we've got a problem.  How can we hold a conversation, much less pass meaningful and mutually acceptable legislation, if the gun lobbies have created such air of distrust that no one is willing to have open and honest discussions to move forward?

This gun show loophole is a perfect example.  This is not a major change in gun rights and regulations by any stretch of the imagination.  It has very little effect on most gun owners and the effect that it does have is (arguably) an annoyance rather than an infringement upon our rights.  There is a lot of sound and fury, but very little to do with the specifics of the legislation in question.  It's all based on, as you put it, a deep suspicion of the government and gun legislation.  

It's all about the red-faced, screaming hoards who are driven to distraction at the mere mention of a safety check on guns.

Crazy people should not have access to massive fire power.

This is common sense; something that that right-wing fear groups like the NRA strive to remove from the common discourse.

You want a hunting license and a rifle to go and take part in the great American deer hunt?  More power to you, but if you're a felon, or schizophrenic with pathological tendencies, we need to know that BEFORE you get a gun.

Well, the bill is dead.  It's a moot point, until Brian and Willie, your sons and daughters get murdered by some crazed thrill seeker like the rat bastard who went crazy at Virginia tech.

Wow, a background check!  What a nuisance!

It is indeed a slightly different culture in some parts of rural Virginia. As an example... I know of several high schools and community colleges in my own area, where at the opening of hunting seasion, one can take a stroll through a half-empty parking lot and see half a dozen or more firearms in gun racks or otherwise stored. Granted, they might be restricted on school grounds... but that doesn't stop people from bringing them if they're planning on hunting later in the day. Nor does it prevent many students from skipping school on the first day of hunting season.

The right to bear arms is a tricky issue for downstate legislators. Do we really want to make a public mockery of one of our Democratic Senators over one issue where he diverged with the predominant caucus view, when he supports progressive efforts in other areas?

Getting back to what I believe to be Willie's point...

Would you rather have a handful of strongly pro-gun Democratic legislators in a Democratic majority that predominantly supports common-sense regulation in cases like the gun show loophole, or a pro-firearm regulation Democratic caucus in the minority, stifling our ability to make progress on a host of other issues?

Senator Edwards is a Democrat, just as Mary Margaret Whipple, just as Phil Puckett, just as Mark Herring, just as Dick Saslaw. We are a party representing an array of different viewpoints, united by a common desire to move our state forward through fiscally responsible behavior and promoting progressive ideals. The fact that we can have disagreements within our own party, that we can tolerate a diversity of ideas and viewpoints without stooping to attack lines like this original post, is the strength of the Democratic Party.

John Edwards has long been about as progressive as his district permits.  His district is about 50% Roanoke City; the rest of his district is rural counties -- Craig, Giles, Pulaski Counties -- and the suburban counties of Montgomery and Roanoke County.  And firearms legislation is not in the same category, in my view, as civil rights legislation as a moral imperative.  I disagree with his vote on this, but that doesn't make him a jerk or an idiot or a traitor or a Lieberman.

We're close to capturing a majority in both houses of the General Assembly. This is no time to be eating our own.

Bristol Herald Courier says "Close gun-show loophole; don't study it further."

That Cho didn't buy weapons at a gun show isn't a reason to allow purchases without background checks to continue. The Cho case was a warning that flawed laws can endanger a society.

We don't oppose gun ownership; it's a constitutionally protected right we embrace. We don't suggest the government intervene in private firearms transactions between friends or neighbors. But those private sales shouldn't take place in the context of gun shows, where the seller might know nothing about the purchaser. Selling to a stranger is not the same as selling a gun to your cousin or co-worker.

Lawmakers should close this loophole that could put guns in the wrong hands. The background investigation law should apply to all.

It's really fascinating, and telling, to observe and participate in conversations such as these among people with very divergent perspectives.  I would love to have a mild, intelligent conversation with a gun-rights advocate, but it doesn't seem possible, as their absolutist perspective just seems to shut off any kind of reasoning with them.  It's almost like guns are a religious matter with some folks, that it is a sin to even bring up the issue.

Do the consumer advocates who insisted that cars have air-bags and pollution control equipment thereby hate cars?  Should the folks who protest toys with lead-paint be labelled toy haters?  No, of course not -- moderate, reasonable regulation of a product does not make you a sworn enemy of that product.

I appreciate the point about having to appeal to rural voters, but I also believe that it is not the job of politicians to follow whatever the voters say whether it makes sense or not.  Sometimes leaders need to do what's responsible even if it's unpopular, and then explain and educate voters as to why they took that stand.  

But here are some interesting polling #s from rural states:

*"a March 2000 Denver Post poll found that 83% of Coloradans support closing the gun-show loophole."

*"In Georgia, traditionally viewed as a solid pro-gun state, a September 1999 Beth Schapiro & Associates poll found that 87% of voters in Georgia support requiring mandatory background checks for all sales at gun shows, even sales by unlicensed, private dealers."

*"A March 2000 poll conducted by the Strategic Marking Services in the state of Maine found that over 93% of the voters in the state favored raising the minimum age under Maine state law from 16 to 21 for the purchase of handguns. Furthermore, the poll found that over 62% of Maine citizens feel that gun laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter."

*"72% of Ohio adults opposed making it easier for citizens to obtain a CCW permit. More telling, 55% said they "strongly" opposed the legislation, while only 17% said they "strongly" favored such legislation."

*"85% of Texans, and 82% of Texas gun owners, responded in an October 1999 Scripps Howard poll that they support mandatory background checks before people - including gun dealers- could buy guns at gun shows."

In other words, closing the gun show loophole is wildly popular EVERYWHERE, including in "red"/rural areas.  So much for THAT argument!

The same rules apply at gun shows as at home or in a mcDonalds parking lot - if you are making an occasion slae or trade of your own guns, then no paperwork, no background check, no nothin'!

This is federal law and the law in 44 states besides Virginia.

If we don't have freedom of contract in guns, we don't have the right to keep and bear arms!

Besides, since federal law bans dealers from doing background checks on 18-20 year olds for handguns, private sales are the only way these adults can buy handguns!

then why are you so worried about closing it?