Virginia voters turning out in support of 2nd amendment? (Richmond: to buy, school)

[Axxlrod]

Ridiculous. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these crazy lawmakers not get????

These anti-gun laws should be struck down by the court, but that can be a crapshoot.

The politician calling for the National Guard to enforce the confiscation of legally-owned weapons could very well be the start of a civil war.

[tgbwc]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

Ridiculous. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these crazy lawmakers not get????

These anti-gun laws should be struck down by the court, but that can be a crapshoot.

The politician calling for the National Guard to enforce the confiscation of legally-owned weapons could very well be the start of a civil war.

You should read the editorial that Watchful posted earlier in this thread (post 68).

[Demolitionman2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh4ZcH94FYg

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

Ridiculous. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these crazy lawmakers not get????

Probably the same part that says something about a well-regulated militia.

The debate about the exact intention goes all the way back to the time of the Civil War. Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment was written in a clear, unambiguous, and straightforward manner is not being honest.

[Trevor92]

Originally Posted by tgbwc

You should read the editorial that Watchful posted earlier in this thread (post 68).

I read it, it’s full of logical fallacies and bias one would expect in the Roanoke Times. It starts by Equivocating with a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy. Anti-Pipeline activists camped out in trees vs sanctuary cities ... really?? And then to cite this as evidence of their independent nature or as they state it, “truth is an equal-opportunity offender.”

Then it denigrates the purpose of making these resolutions as “meaningless” followed by the snarky comment, “OK, so?” Did a teenager write this? If Then immediately after bashing the counties, states these laws would be constitutional because Gov. Northam said so... “but they don’t appear to be unconstitutional“... the paper cites red flag laws and universal background checks but leaves out more controversial proposals to create a registry, ban standard magazines, or ban possession of previously legal and commonly owned semi-automatics based on cosmetic features rather than actual data. Certainly some interesting speculation on behalf of the staff constitutional expert.

Going on, it then presents a false dichotomy. Because as stated in Heller, “Second Amendment is not unlimited” we should presume these laws to be constitutional. Don’t forget, we don’t yet know what the laws will be. Then one of the most outrageous point of the article claiming that “the government can prohibit certain types of firearms” to justify the proposed ban. Mind you the entire point of Heller was not only to protect an individual right to firearm ownership, as is generally accepted with all other Bill of Rights amendments, it also specifically protected “commonly used” and “popular” firearms. The paper presents an interesting pretzel form of logic to say Heller says it’s ok to ban the most popular version of rifle sold in America, what specifically Heller says its not ok to ban.

Following a tangential criticism of a state delegate, it really gets absurd from here. The same paper which has championed protests against the president now accuses crowds in favor of the second amendment of, “ failing to understand that they lost the last election.” Wonder if this would be their response to abortion-restriction protests? Even the most ardent liberal has to admit this is a reach, I’m not even sure I understand the comparison as the paper has been widely supportive of protests against the president. The cherry on top is a total fabrication, “along with failing to understand the relevant Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment” when it actually appears the Editorial Board is the one that does not understand the decisions.

What next? Of course, an implication of RACISM!!! Because segregationists brought up the term “Nullification” and “Massive Resistance” and somebody might bring that up in this debate—even though there are historical examples of the massive resistance against segregation for instance. Essentially this is a coded message that second amendment supporters are probably racist, just believe the editor and don’t ask questions... Nullification!

Finally, let’s attack a sheriff who might not enforce these laws. Despite the fact sheriffs prioritize which laws to enforce on a routine basis. Any Sheriff that puts lives on the line to confiscate from an otherwise law-abiding citizen is insane. There are already laws on the books for the others. When the table is turned, bad laws must be disobeyed such as Separate-but-equal, immigration sanctuary cities, and Prohibition. Closing out the piece by bringing up anti-pipeline protestors again...

Frankly I find this whole article absurd, defies logic and common sense, and I’m not sure why it resonates with some people enough to be cited multiple times. It’s a hack piece that’s as biased as they come.

[Bigfoot424]

Well said Trevor92. I can't read the article as it wants me to turn off my AdBlocker. But there are very few newspapers left who do not espouse liberal views in their opinion/commentary sections. It sounds like I'm not missing anything worthwhile in the article.

[VA Yankee]

/\

Most papers prints opinions/commentary's expressing views from both sides of a discussion but I guess this now unacceptable because for this argument only one view is can be expressed....

[gregir]

Originally Posted by Trevor92

I heard this logic a lot when I lived in Va Beach and worked with many people from NoVa. But this logic is viewed as elitist and arrogant from most of the state as it is interpreted that NoVa does not think their values are important and should be discredited because they don’t contribute as much to the state coffers. Most rural counties would gladly have NoVa keep their tax dollars local if it meant more local control over issues. Rural counties most of all do not control how dollars flow from Richmond and NoVa did not complain during the years the coal severance tax dollars were coming in. Get ready for taxes go up if the state puts on a concerted effort for state police or the Nat Guard to enforce this if the counties and towns do not.

Historically speaking, DC was placed in its location to border urban MD and rural Va, which included present-day WV and KY. Even into the 80’s Va was the state of compromise and both factions living together with Democratic figures like Douglas Wilder, Chuck Robb, and Rick Boucher representing SW-Va. This new strategy of forcing through legislation bitterly opposed by others, while claiming that other parts of the state aren’t worth listening to, is new and funded by liberal billionaires in other states. It’s not traditionally what Va has been.

I don't think that the rural areas would have well functioning services and government that they expect.
imagine the money mapped the same as the property taxes do to schools. It would function more like that. Election processes and a lot of core judiciary functions, the dept of health and other things that most would not like to do without are funded form the general state coffers. If you break it down the new rural state would have to choose what they would do without and would not be attractive to business or people. Not saying that the more populated areas have better politics than the rural areas but when you get into the details the rosy concept of splitting into a poorly funded new state might not be so attractive.

[warhorse78]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot424

One lawmaker brought up the VA National Guard. They know this will never happen and I've already seen many NG members saying they'd resign/walk away before ever doing this work. It was a desperate comment by the lawmaker as they never expected this large of a response from legal gun owners.

But where do these lawmakers get off by trying to punish law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment right? These people did nothing wrong! At all! But, these lawmakers are abusing their powers and need to be checked, now!

[tgbwc]

Originally Posted by warhorse78

But where do these lawmakers get off by trying to punish law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment right? These people did nothing wrong! At all! But, these lawmakers are abusing their powers and need to be checked, now!

Right. They did nothing wrong. These bills are still, well...bills.