Sen. Mark Warner: Newtown is 'Game Changer' on Guns

Virginia senator said his three daughters asked him Friday what he was going to do about school shootings tragedy.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner wants to tighten gun laws, saying "enough is enough" in the wake of the Connecticut school shootings Friday that saw 20 young children and six adults killed.

“I‘ve been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights,” the Democrat from Alexandria said Monday outside the Virginia Capitol, where he was attending an unrelated meeting, The Washington Post reported Monday.

“I’ve got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn’t acceptable. I’ve got three daughters," the Post reported. "They asked me on Friday evening, ‘Dad, what are you gonna do about this?’ There’s got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition.”

“I believe every American has Second Amendment rights, the ability to hunt is part of our culture," Warner said on Richmond's CBS affiliate, Channel 6. "I’ve had an NRA (National Rifle Association) rating of an 'A' but, you know, enough is enough." The NRA is headdquartered in Fairfax.

A Warner staffmember sent out a tweet Monday: SenWarner thinks #Newtown shooting "game changer" on guns

President Obama, who visited Newtown, Conn., the site of the shootings, also wants to tighten gun laws.

"It's a complex problem that will require a complex solution," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. Carney, The Wall Street Journal reported, said the president wants to engage the public, parents, law enforcement and mental-health professionals to find a solution. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she plans to introduce legislation to ban assault weapons at the start of the next Congress. 

T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Intellectually honest? Like the argument that any form of gun control would be ineffective (even though you have no real proof) so we shouldn't even try or talk about it? By the way Greg, you DO NOT have the right to buy any gun you choose. That is not what the Constitution says. It says you have the right to bear arms. Peirod. Therein lies the problem. You want to let anyone buy an gun anywhere they like. That just does not work and this country will no longer accept that to pander to the likes of people like you. And by the way, nobody really cares about protecting the gun industry right now. The jobs of a few people in a non-critical industry is not worth the lives of 20 children. Add to that the 30 or so adults and a hundred or so injured just in the past 6 months. All by assult weapons with 30 and 100 round mags. This may be acceptable in your twisted world, but here in reality it is not.
Wilber December 18, 2012 at 03:27 PM
There are many gun laws on the books. The government does not enforce them. If you have a criminal background you can't legally buy a gun. We need to stop thinking that we may hurt someone's feelings if we label them as too crazy to have a gun. We all know who they are. Everyone knew this punk was too crazy to have a gun. Mommy just failed to do the right thing. Look at DC and Chicago. They ALLOW the thugs to have guns. Usually these incidents are the same. Some person/kid that everyone knows is off in the head is allowed to obtain a gun ILLEGALLY and kill people. You never hear of a licensed concealed carry person doing this sort of thing. It is your punk living in mommy and daddy's basement that feels entitled that does it. The people talking about guns do not even understand the basic terminology of guns in general. They use the word assault rifle. They are not. In most cases if you put an extra handle on a rifle or shot gun is considered an assault weapon. Same gun with an extra handle. Look at the gun running of fast and furious. All of this is politics. The problem is that the left is just to ignorant about guns and crime in general to even have an intelligent conversation about it. It is just like during the election….”Hate anyone successful”. It is just soft points for the uniformed that win the votes. This is the most divided I have ever seen this country. It is and will continue to get worse.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Right Greg, like saying that "I need my guns because I will defend you when the Governemnt comes to take you away" is reasoned and well thought out. Uh huh. If all you have to add to the discussion is tin foil hat parinoia and NRA propaganda, then you have nothing to add to the discussion and shouldn't expect to be taken seirously. Say something real and you will get a real response. This country has tolerated the likes you you and John for far too long in an effort to avoid a constitutional fight. But the time for that is over.
Greg December 18, 2012 at 03:33 PM
In no way did I say "No" gun control.....and I also made it clear everyone has the right to their opinion and that I undertand many of those mentioned here. No one says we can't talk about it. There are many gun laws and regulations on the books right now. You make wild generalizations on my comments that are not based on what I wrote....you already cannot buy any gun you want anywhere at anytime.....there are already restrictions on what you can buy, when you can buy, what you have to do to be able to buy in the first place. But I digress All Hail Comrade T-Bird......and he says my world is twisted.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Uh huh, only illegal guns kill? Ever hear of Virginia Tech. Cho owned those guns legally. This guys mother owned those guns legally. And you berate people for "not knowing enough" to even discuss the issue. Because what, they don't know technicial terms? And tell me, what is an AR-15 with a 100 round clip?? A hunting rifle? Do you even know how many of the people on the "left" actually own guns? Or are you just passing off more vauge generalizations as fact. Learned that watching Faux News? It usually is the most dim witted of us calling everyone else idiots.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:48 PM
And I quote "I will not accept infringement on my right to purchase a certain type of firearm because of a specific incident." MY point was YOU do not have the RIGHT to "purchase a certian type of firearm". You have the right to purchase A firearm. No type or selection was ever specified. And by your comment, I must then assume that you would object to any kind of restriction on the type of weapon you can buy. This is not a wild generalization, and is based exactly what you wrote. My conclusions are no more wilder than what is being made by gun supporters here. The general public does not need or want your protection. And while there are laws, they have obiviously failed. Yet, all you do is comment on the comments and not the subject at hand. Nit pick about terminology and critque writing. I have yet to hear a reasoned response on the subject. Where's your proof that there are "enough" gun laws already? Where is your proof that additional restrictions would have no effect? I'll tell you where it is, you don't have it because it don't exist.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Jason, do we really need to point out again that the 22 children in China were injured, and none were killed. If that guy had a an AK-47, there would be 22 dead children. Fail.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Oh and right, everybody who wants more gun control is a commie. Talk about generalizations. I didn't know Japan and Austrailia were communist.
Beka Martinez December 18, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Leave my guns - and my right to defend myself - alone; why impose "controls" on the thousands who own guns and ammunition and DON'T misuse them? The need is for readily available, easily accessed, and effective services for those with mental, emotional, and cognitive impairments - and I can tell you that these services are greatly lacking everywhere in this country.
T-Bird December 18, 2012 at 07:24 PM
So there should be no rules or regulations for operating a car since most people drive safely? We should all just trust your judgement and self-regulation? We should trust the judgement of half-wits like you who think there is a legitimate need for a 100 round mag? Who think the "guvernmint" is coming after them? I think not.
Sandra December 18, 2012 at 07:48 PM
T-Bird is right - our constitution doesn't guarantee the right to own any and all types and numbers of guns. The NRA and people supporting it are twisting things around so that it sounds like gun control means the government is going to not allow gun use at all. Instead, I look at gun control as a means of assuring that people who buy guns are properly knowledgeable, responsible, and are buying guns for legitimate purposes, such as hunting. I would like access restricted when it comes to large scale rapid fire weapons and their ammunition. You don't need an automatic weapon when it comes to hunting - in fact, I would think a true huntsman would consider that unsportsmanlike. I also see no need for regular people to use hollow point ammunition and other bullets intended to kill or cause significant bodily harm. I do find it extremely scary that people are posting that they need these kinds of weapons "in case the government comes after us". Those are exactly the kinds of people that I believe should NOT have access to guns. Seriously, unless you are engaged in some kind of illegal activity, the government will not come knocking on your door. The kind of people posting that stuff are the ones that become a story in the news because they are completely paranoid and shot someone because a voice in their head told them to.
Mervo December 19, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Can anyone actually think of a justification for owning an automatic or semi-automatic firearm? The 2nd amendment states quite simply that we have the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify what type of arms. So, a band on automatic and semi-automatic firearms is not un-constitutional....period. We have to take a step in the right direction to help prevent this type of tragedy in the future. Those kids might still be alive if our leaders had made a better choice in the past. We owe it to our children to do better....
Dave Fuller December 19, 2012 at 02:02 PM
How about a 'responsibility' tax? Every time someone buys a firearm they must spend a week in a public school classroom defending it against interlopers.
chris c December 20, 2012 at 09:22 PM
an unarmed population invites dictatorship. Proof: look at all the countries world wide that were victims of dictatorships. a population armed with semi-automatic rifle can pose a threat but not much bc the opposing force has fully automatic "assault rifles". A single shot rifle is no better than a musket and no chance to stop a would be dictator. I pray for those kids and their families. How about my brothers-in-arm who loss their lives defending the constitutions? They were cute as kids and they are all someones child. how about them. We can all talk, be rude and criticize our presidents from Washington to emperor Obama because of those evil semi auto guns ( who can kill kids while still in the trunk). All criminals and Nutbags should be in a national database. You name in it you can not buy any guns. You buy a gun for them you go to jail as an accessory to murder. How about that.
T-Bird December 20, 2012 at 09:35 PM
You,sir, should be entry # 1 into said database.
T Ailshire December 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM
When only law-enforcement officers have firearms, they become the law, not the enforcers. A ban means we, the law-abiding, are then ruled by the lawless, the criminal, and the person who does not care about our rights. Semi-automatic firearms are NOT automatic, and not rapid-fire. They shoot one bullet with each pull of the trigger. Please learn what you're proposing to ban. The regulations on owning *automatic* weapons are legion.
T Ailshire December 20, 2012 at 10:26 PM
OK, Firearms 101. Automatic weapons are highly regulated. Highly. They require BATFE approval, tax stamps, law-enforcement officer approval, and lots of money. Semi-automatic firearms are so-called because they place one more cartridge into the barrel after each trigger pull. One pull, one bullet. They are not rapid-fire, or high-capacity, firearms. Some *may* hold more than a six-shooter (and some don't). When only the police and military have *any* class of firearms, HOW will you ensure that criminals *don't*?
T Ailshire December 20, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Irrelevant. Warner hasn't changed his mind on abortion rights based on what some person did in Connecticut.
T Ailshire December 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM
A well-reasoned discussion should include all options -- including a Kennesaw, Georgia-like requirement that every household have one firearm, a total ban, and everything in between Instead, we get ad hominem attacks such as we see here. A well-reasoned discussion does NOT dismiss notions of individual rights just because someone fears an inanimate object. I believe any discussion of the government telling me what I *need* is ludicrous; what I *need* and what I want or can afford may be two different things, and the government has no more input than it does in whether I *need* a Ford or a Ferrari. When we start allowing the government to infringe based on someone's idea of need, we give control to someone else. However, that's what I believe. I'm willing to listen to reasoned arguments. Reasoned arguments don't accuse me of parroting some organization's talking points; they don't accuse me of being a nut job or a killer, and they are based on facts rather than emotion. When we're willing to do that, Senator Warner, you can quit flexing the little rubber hammer near your knees and discuss what *should* be done, if anything.
T-Bird December 21, 2012 at 03:11 AM
T Ailshire - I guess magazine capacity (or at least an honest evaluation of it) is Firearms 102. You would then know that just about every semi automatic weapon holds more than 6 rounds. You would also know that the Newton shooter had 30 rounds and the Colorado shooter had a 100 round drum. You would also know that your rate of fire can be anywhere from 3 to 5 rounds per second, and the average person could unload a 30 round clip in 10-15 seconds. You want an honest discussion, yet you continue to distort the truth. Also, everybody has a right to an opinion on this matter. People in the "know" regarding terms have no monopoly on deciding what happens. That's called a democracy.
T Ailshire December 21, 2012 at 01:30 PM
T-bird, those are more facts, potentially. No distortion of the truth, just facts. I'd have to question whether "just about every" magazines hold more than seven rounds. I simply don't know; I'm much more familiar with handguns than with long arms. Before the advent of the Glock, I'd have argued your point, as the 1911 generally carries 7. Since then, "standard" capacity can range from 7 to 30. Most handguns are 6-15; above that they become too heavy to carry. Beyond that, I'd have to research. Neither makes a difference to Mervo's point of "automatic or semi-automatic firearm". A semi-automatic, rifle or pistol, is a standard firearm in the 21st century.
T-Bird December 21, 2012 at 01:42 PM
So you prove my point, but infer I'm somehow wrong. It is a distortion to call a 100 round drum "not high capicity". It is a distortion to infer that only some semi-auto weapons have more than 6 rounds, when in fact it is nearly all. It is a distortion to call 3 to 5 rounds per second a low rate of fire. All distortions made to support your false argument that we should just accept it the way it is, and it's not a bad as we say it is. Both false. Your lies are not convincing anybody.
T-Bird December 21, 2012 at 01:48 PM
By the way I do own a gun (a rifle) and I've been shooting since I was 11, when I was trained by my scoutmaster (a federal agent) in gun safety. Just in case you think more distortions are going to convince me, they're not.
T Ailshire December 21, 2012 at 02:14 PM
T-bird, I'm not going to argue irrelevant. I responded to melody lloyd's point and Mervo's point about "automatic" weapons. You can have the last word if you like.
MarieS December 22, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Thank you, Senator Warner, for being a decent human being with common sense, who cares more about our children's lives than an NRA rating.
T Ailshire December 22, 2012 at 04:24 PM
If he cares about children's lives, would he not be willing to protect them in whatever manner possible, EVEN IF that meant armed guards at our schools, or armed faculty and staff? If one supports armed guards at airports, terminals, sporting venues, etc., how can one say a school is less important?
Big_Ed January 02, 2013 at 11:31 PM
A double-barrel shotgun was one of the firearms used to murder at Columbine. Only two shots can be fired from a double-barreled shotgun before the shooter must reload by breaking the barrel open, manually inserting two new rounds, and closing the gun. The cops sat outside while those scumbags murdered, reloaded, and murdered more.
Big_Ed January 02, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Maybe you'll consider a similar tax when you use your First Amendment Right.
Big_Ed January 02, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Senator Warner, take notice that these massacres always occur in "gun free zones."
Bob Grigsby January 12, 2013 at 04:53 AM
Wow, bottom line... Constitution of the United States and oath of office to defend said document. If you have issue with said document... Move on, crazy killed those kids not the gun.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something