Joe Morrissey; Get your booger hook off of the bang switch

| January 18, 2013

Booger hook on the bang switch

Another fine example of the people who want to limit our choice of what we spend our money on. In the Virginia House of Delegates, Joe Morrissey held up an AK-47-style weapon and explained why he thought we weren’t responsible enough to own that type of weapon…his finger clearly on the trigger.

When his fellow delegates and the media criticized him for his irresponsible behavior, he assured everyone that the weapon wasn’t loaded. But responsible gun owners, not Morrissey, know that all guns are always loaded, or at least that’s how we treat the weapons. From local news;

“Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution did it say that someone can carry an AK-47 and walk down the middle of the street with it,” Morrissey said.

The delegate is introducing legislation that would ban the sale, transfer, import or barter of assault rifles and magazines holding 20 or more rounds. Morrissey says his proposal would prohibit gun enthusiasts from buying or selling assault weapons at Gun Shows like one at the Show Place.

I wonder if his proposal would bar him from owning any weapon, because clearly he doesn’t know what he’s doing. By the way, his bill that would have prohibited drivers from smoking in their car failed yesterday.

Thanks to ROS for the picture.

Category: Liberals suck

Comments (106)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @36 We don’t test our drivers for their ability to stop on a wet skid plate either, but we let them get licenses to operate a vehicle every day. Interestingly enough we have had an average of 43,000 deaths per year on the highway. No one discusses limiting heavier vehicles which is a contributing factor in many vehicle to vehicle collision deaths, nor do they discuss enhanced licensing requirements for automobiles. While I understand that automobiles are not designed expressly to kill people, in fact car companies go out of their way to point out how safe their particular vehicles are, the fact remains they do kill a great many more people in a single year than guns do in a typical 36 month cycle and the requirements to be allowed to operate them are fairly minimal.

    At what point does the conversation about saving lives no matter if it’s just a single life actually become an honest discussion about the various things that kill Americans and what is the best way to achieve that reduction in death due to violence or accident?

    In specific regard to firearms, what honest discussion about saving a single life ignores 90% of the homicides and their perpetrators in large metropolitan areas? I would argue that avoiding that discussion is a deliberate attempt by those who would disarm the law abiding to avoid having to admit their social programs are an abject failure and leave the areas most dependent on those programs violence ridden crime camps for the inhabitants. The destruction of the lives of the people who have been sold a lie about the benefits of a welfare society are there for all to see, what proposal from the Morissey types in Congress addresses that reality? Zero, they have no answer for the monster they have created.

    It’s patently dishonest for anti-gun proponents to claim they respect the 2nd amendment when they clearly wish to legislate their way around it. Being honest means the anti-gun proponents will initiate a movement to generate a 28th amendment repealing the 2nd. Being dishonest means attempting to regulate the 2nd amendment in a fashion far different than any other amendment, and in a fashion that may yet be decided to be unconstitutional.

    The law doesn’t care for my feelings or your feelings, it only exists to legislate our behavior and the effect of that behavior on society at large. It is your contention that the 2nd amendment is an outdated, antiquated ideal we can live without. Then act in accordance with the law and work to repeal it as is your right. I will continue to thwart your efforts and those like you as is my right, rhetoric does little to advance any argument.

  2. Joe says:

    So let me make sure I have this straight – leave you alone, but let any dangerous, untrained Tom, Dick or Harry (e.g., Joe Morrisey) buy as many semiautomatics as they want. Sounds very reasonable.

    “…If a crime is committed, prosecute.” You mean a little teensy violation like mowing donwn 27 people in an elementary school. OK, I get it, we’ll prosecute people Adam Lanza. Great plan you got there.

  3. Reaperman says:

    @42 that doesn’t look much like a pistol grip to me. Do thumb holes count? My guess was that the stock was carefully crafted around some laws. I was also guessing that it didn’t have the flash suppressor or bayonette mount.

  4. Joe says:


    Believe it or not, I do know what facism is. Mussolini said facism should rightly be called corporatism, since it is the marriage between corporate and state interests. Kinda like what we got goin’ on now between the the corporate funded NRA, the gun manufacturers, and the politicians they have bought.

  5. UpNorth says:

    Joey-boy, if only folks like you hadn’t fucked up the mental health laws permanently, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and others would have been in a mental hospital. The ACLU and liberals like you made it impossible to get them any help, or to, at the least, ensure that they were not a threat to anyone.
    You really need to find a new source for your talking points, DU isn’t doing you any favors.

  6. JP says:

    Right Joe…you know what “facism” is…not be be confused with “fascism” or anything.

  7. Joe says:


    Could you be a little more petty please?

  8. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @30. Joe– Il Duce was already taken so we’re assigning you Il Dunce.

  9. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    I think Joe meant “El Douce”.

  10. Old Trooper says:

    Hey Joe; got them numbers for your counter argument, yet?

    You blowhard. You dance on top of the innocent victims of Sandy Hook and wave the bloody shirt as your perceived moral authority to lecture others, when you ignore data that refutes your hyperbole and emotionalism. How many people were killed with knives last year? How many with “assault rifles”? How many with rifles in general? You bleet on about semi-automatic firearms as though they are the new boogeyman. So, I guess you’re moving the goal posts away from “assault rifles” to semi-automatic firearms? Is that because your position can’t stand up to critical thinking and logic, so you have to make the argument ever more broad?

    You’re a coward.

  11. NHSparky says:

    Joe–you have a definition for facism? Really? That’s pretty amazing, considering that historians can’t even agree on it.

    Might I suggest you hit the first 20-30 pages of Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism”?

    Seems there are as many definitions for the word as there are people, and pretty much no two are alike.

  12. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “You’re a coward.”

    Joe–Those may be the worst words one man can say to another. They’re fighting words Joe. Bet they don’t bother you at all, do they?

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    I don’t think JP was being petty, Joey-boy, but I do think you are abundantly boring and colossally stupid.

    Facism is the act or process of getting right in someone’s face about something.

    Fascism, on the other hand, is NOT the marriage of corporate and state interests. That is socialism.

    Here, for your edification, is the difference:

    Socialism and Fascism

    Socialism is defined as a set of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society sharing in the work and products. It means that, in theory, everyone works for the greater good.

    Fascism is described as a system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, a forcible suppression of opposition, all private economic enterprises should be under government control, aggressive nationalism, racism and militarism.
    Fascism is an extremist ideology. It believes in a super patriotic and dictatorial single party state. People who believe in fascism are known as fascists.
    Fascists believe in a concept that states a nation or people can only prosper if they are constantly fighting with other nations or its own people. The weak are killed and the strong live ahead.
    Their governments are dictatorial. There is no right for free speech and opposition against the government is strictly forbidden.
    Nowadays, people have made fascism an adjective, which they used to label governments which they don’t like to see.
    Some fascist countries have been Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler, Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, Argentina under Peron, Chile under Pinochet and Japan under Tojo.

    And, actually, fascism is closer to what Joey-boy is promoting.

  14. Curt says:

    2/17, Joe isn’t a fighter- he’s made that clear! He’s a ‘wordsmith’!

  15. NHSparky says:

    And Joey, when you use Mussolini as an example of how fascism is supposedly “right-wing”, keep in mind that fascism has a nasty little “left-wing” tendency to want to have centralized (read: state) control.

    In fact, if you look at the Nazis, Fascistis in Italy, and the militaristic movement in Japan, subservience to the state was paramount in all these societies. Not exactly a “right-winger” ideal. Also, consider these folks were practicing “national socialism” (hence part of the Nazi name) verus what the Soviets idealized (international socialism).

    So basically, when you try to claim the Nazis were right-wingers? BZZZZZZZTTTT!!!! Historical fail.

  16. bpete1969 says:

    The Washington Examiner reported the following:
    Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, interrupted Morrissey’s speech to ask him to take his finger off the trigger lock and later said that taking guns from citizens is what led to the Holocaust and mass killings under the Soviet Gulag.

  17. Joe says:

    Jonah Goldberg is the worst of the worst. Total lunatic.

  18. Hondo says:

    Joey-boy (52): not even a good try, son. If you’re going to create a strawman, it has to be believable. And even you can’t be stupid enough to advocate prosecuting the dead. (You did know Lanza was dead, right? Just checking – most people have too much self-pride to suggest something that idiotic. But maybe you don’t.)

    You want firearms buyers to have training? Then as O-4E told you in (38) above – which you either ignored or didn’t comprehend – work to make that a requirement. But you won’t, since that wouldn’t accomplish your aim of banning private ownership of “scary, evil” guns outright. (You might as well admit it, ’cause we all know that’s what you really want.)

    And quit trying to redefine your argument every time you get in trouble. Both I and Old Trooper – and, I’m certain, others – have already caught you doing exactly that. Sheesh.

  19. Joe says:

    You’re full of it NHS,
    The industrialists fawned over and were in bed with the fascists (did I spell it right?) during WWII. Fascism fattened their wallets big time.

  20. Hondo says:

    Reaperman: I expanded the photo some more, and it looks like you’re right. I didn’t notice the thin band of wood below the thumb-hole previously. Mea culpa.

  21. Hondo says:

    True, Joey-boy. And irrelevant to NHSparkey’s point. He was talking about central direction and control – not ownership.

    Of course the private corporations made $$$. But they did exactly what the German/Italian/Japanese leadership told them to do. Otherwise, they didn’t keep ownership – or stay out of the hands of their local Gestapo/Kempeitai/whatever the Italians under Mussolini called their equivalent.

    Central control of the means of production has always been a basic concept of Socialism. Any form of government which openly pursues that is practicing some form of Socialism. That’s why it was called “National Socialism” in Germany.

    By the way: you did know that Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party, and quit it to join a different leftist group, before founding his party – didn’t you? All Mussolini’s Fascism was was Socialism run by a totalitarian dictatorship and having a strong streak of Italian nationalism and/or imperial tendencies.

    And damn – quit trying to change the subject or the terms under discussion every time you have difficulty supporting your side of an argument! Sheesh.

  22. Joe says:

    If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is this video worth?

  23. Hondo says:

    Joey-boy: Since it’s from the Huffington Post, it’s worth exactly what you paid to get it (and almost certainly what they paid the creator to use it): zero.

    Interesting you’d cite to an online publication like Huffpo which depends on unpaid labor for its existence. That’s really “paying a living wage”, eh?

    Not surprising, though, considering your other hypocrisy here.

  24. Reaperman says:

    @70 yeah, I guess where I’m going is that he found a pretty scary (AKA awesome) looking gun to make his point, but unless this is a far harsher law than before, it’s one that would still easily be legal after any fiddling they could possibly enact. (outside of getting a different magazine) Maybe not the best choice of weapon for this stunt.

  25. Jonn Lilyea says:

    The thumb hole stock is on Feinstein’s latest hitlist.

  26. cannoncocker says:

    Joe #52

    You MAY have had a point there if it wasn’t for the inconvenient fact that Lanza did not legally acquire any of those weapons. Try again.

    I find it interesting how quickly you throw your own people under the bus when you are trying to make a (poor) point. Joe Morrissey is on YOUR side. Did you know that? He wants to the same thing you want; to instantly turn millions of good Americans into criminals overnight for who the hell knows what reason. And here you are, throwing him under the bus with the rest of us. Why?

    I will bring your attention back to the initial point of this thread. Here we have another gun-grabber, who is using an object he knows nothing about to make a (poor) point. As most of us here are service members or prior service members, we can instantly see that Morrissey is excersizing very negligent trigger discipline, and we think that’s funny. But here he is, trying to lecture us on a subject he knows nothing about like he’s some sort of expert. It’s like having a kid flipping burgers at McDonalds trying to give us medical advice. We know he has no clue what he’s talking about, but he keeps talking anyway like we’re supposed to listen and heed his words. The same applies to you Joe. Do some research, figure some things out, maybe even go to the range and send some lead down range, then come back and talk to us.

  27. Reaperman says:

    @75 Well that ruins my idea of that then. Unless the rules are for external mags and just one extra somewhat military-looking feature. It would have fit nicely under the last assault weapon ban, anyway. I guess that means that in the future (assuming anything gets passed) “thumb holes” might just have to become “thumb nooks.”

  28. Spade says:

    I wonder if he’ll flip out and assault a VCDL member on Monday when we show up for Lobby Day open carrying?

    Oh yeah: This guy was disbarred once, partly because he assaulted opposing counsel during a trial.

  29. O-4E says:


    LMAO!!! You are correct:

    What a f*cking turd

    The anti-gun crowd needs more of this type to speak up

  30. USMCE8Ret says:

    #30 is now “El Douche”.

  31. Spade says:

    Ah, here we are:
    Specifically, Mr. Morrissey’s record includes:

    a dismissal with terms in April 1990 that required him to attend the Virginia State Bar Professionalism Course and certify that he would establish and maintain a trust account if he returned to private practice;

    a dismissal with terms in September 1990 that required him to attend two hours of legal ethics training after findings that he represented a criminal defendant in the same matter for which he previously prosecuted him while serving as commonwealth’s attorney;

    a dismissal with terms in June 1993 that required him to write a letter of apology to the presiding judge in a case in which he, while serving as commonwealth’s attorney, amended a felony warrant of arrest for drunken driving down to misdemeanor reckless driving without leave of court;

    a private reprimand in December 1990 for failing to perfect two criminal appeals and for failing to keep the client reasonably informed about them;

    a public reprimand in March 1992 for his involvement, while serving as commonwealth’s attorney, in a fist fight with opposing counsel in a criminal trial conducted in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond (See Morrissey v. Virginia State Bar, 260 Va. 472, 488, 538 S.E.2d 677, 680 Va. 2000);

    a six-month suspension in December 1993 for misconduct that constituted “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” in arranging a plea bargain in a rape case in which the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and the defendant’s father paid $25,000 to the victim and $25,000 to charities designated by Mr. Morrissey while Mr. Morrissey was serving as commonwealth’s attorney, and for concealing this portion of the agreement from the victim, who had indicated to Mr. Morrissey that she wanted more than $25,000 as an “accord and satisfaction” (See Morrissey v. Virginia State Bar, 248 Va. 334, 338, 448 S.E.2nd 615, 617 Va. 1994);

    a three-year suspension in December 1999 deriving from his conviction on two counts of contempt for violating Local Rule 57 (C) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (making public statements about the identity, testimony or credibility of prospective witnesses), for which he was sentenced to ninety days’ imprisonment followed by three years of probation, and a third citation of contempt for his angry outburst directed at the presiding judge during a sentencing hearing in the Chesterfield County Circuit Court (See Morrissey v. Virginia State Bar, 260 Va. at 477, 538 S.E.2d at 679); and

    a show-cause summary suspension of his law license in October 2002 deriving from his disbarment from practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, effective December 21, 2001, in which the court addressed the matters set forth above and Mr. Morrissey’s subsequent violations of the conditions of probation (attempting to circumvent the conditions of probation and lying to probation officer), resulting in an additional ninety-day jail sentence and the revocation of his probation. See In re: Joseph D. Morrissey, 305 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2002). In return for Mr. Morrissey’s withdrawal of the appeal of the April 2003 revocation of his law license, the Virginia State Bar agreed to dismiss the show cause matter.

  32. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Geez Louise.

  33. Geetwillickers says:

    Thanks for the laughs on a Friday afternoon Joe – I have seen most of those videos before, one of them (the genius who shoots his hat off with a shotgun) during a firearms training class as what most of us call a “bad example” of safe firearms handling. (Of course I can comfortably say that all of us in the class were already wincing when dumbass reversed his shotgun… but I digress.) One guy showed an excellent grasp of firearm safety – the guy who lost his pants. Did you notice how he made sure the gun was cleared and safe before he reached for his britches? AND – he kept the muzzle downrange while doing so!
    The best was the tough guy at the end though. I loved the “Mom’s gonna kill me” comment. I am positive that if an excellent example of a role model for today’s youth like that young man were to find out that his guns were no longer legal, he would be first in line to turn them in!

    I never thought I would say something like this to someone like you about something posted on Huffpo… but Thanks Joe!


  34. Hondo says:

    Here’s the page from the Virginia State Bar Attorney Records Search page on Morrissey:

    He appears to have been disbarred on 15 May 2003. Although he apparently indicated he would appeal this to the VA Supreme Court, the VA State Bar Attorney Records Search tool shows no record of further action. I’m thus forced to conclude the VA Supreme Court declined to hear his case. However, he apparently was readmitted to the VA bar on 16 December 2011.

    The links at the above are interesting reading. I wonder how many of the voters in his district know about any of this?

    By the way: if any of you wants to check on a lawyer’s record who’s practicing (or previously practiced) law in Virginia, this page might be of interest:

  35. USMCE8Ret says:

    @81 – And this guy is representing the district down in Southern VA? What the f-cking f-ck?

  36. Hondo says:

    USMCE8Ret: he represents the Richmond metro area. Not quite as bad as NoVA regarding lack of common sense, but fairly close.

  37. Ex-PH2 says:

    So, Hondo, how many people duly elected to office in the last XXX years (pick a number) would you say are like this?

    Illinois is SO bad. I keep wondering when Madigan is going to dry up and blow away down in Springfield. Just because Blago and Ryan are in jail, that don’t mean we still don’t smell like road apples.

  38. Hondo says:

    Dunno, Ex-PH2. But The Refreshments were right – the world is full of stupid people, and many of them vote. So the number could be fairly high.

  39. ROS says:

    I’m still vexed at Joseph being referred to as a “wordsmith”.

    Wounded am I.

  40. Curt says:

    Well shit, I put “wordsmith” in quotes…I thought that was a dead giveaway! Guess I should have added /sarc, huh?

  41. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @89. Feel better. I understand that Joe is a wordsmith in the same sense that most NBA centers are great VW Beetle drivers and Charo was an enviable talent.

  42. Hondo says:

    ROS: I think someone was trying to think of the term Jonn uses for a certain Vote Vets personality and mistyped it.

  43. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Overlap at 90/91!

  44. Curt says:

    HAH! I just got it! Thanks, Hondo!

  45. Old Trooper says:

    @72: Nice try. Why don’t you come up with an argument on your own? You claim that we don’t have original thoughts, yet many here have given you just that, and you come back with someone elses stuff. That’s the definition of projection. You still haven’t refuted any of the facts I provided for you. What are you waiting for? Show me all of the numbers you have to back up your 11,000+ killed by guns per year.

    Just because you wet your diaper at the site of someone packing doesn’t mean everyone else does. If you want to go down the road of “what ifs”, then you would never leave the house. If you think you’re going to survive long enough for the police to get to you, you’re living in a fantasy world (as if we didn’t already know that). Plus, because of SCOTUS upholding a lower court ruling that the police do not have a Constitutional obligation to protect the individual, the thought of relying on the police to come to your rescue are pretty slim. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about in the context of firearms, other than what you get from the Brady Campaign. As others have said; if you don’t want a firearm, then don’t get one, but you have no right to tell me that I can’t have one, even if it upsets your delicate sensibilities.

  46. ROS says:

    I must double down on his grammatical corrections after this. You know that, right? 🙂

  47. cannoncocker says:

    I’ve seen Joe’s video before. It’s quite a laugh.

    Couldn’t help but add this to that subject: google “Westboro Baptist Church” for an example of First Amendment rights gone wrong. Or google Chappel’s Show for an example of “FIF” amendment rights gone wrong. Need I go on?

  48. Green Thumb says:


    Get a life.

    Defender of free speech and everything else you nothing about(or do not like; logic aside).

    Move on.


  49. Skeptical says:

    Spade – are any of those felonies? What is this freak doing with a gun?