Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Norfolk Virginian-Pilot - Citizen Commentary

  1. #1
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375

    Norfolk Virginian-Pilot - Citizen Commentary

    In Sunday's Pilot: http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/Olive...&view=document

    Synopsis: I know guns; I have guns; but, why would you need that many guns?

    I am drafting my response LTE right now.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by USNA69 View Post
    In Sunday's Pilot: http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/Olive...&view=document

    Synopsis: I know guns; I have guns; but, why would you need that many guns?

    I am drafting my response LTE right now.
    I'll bet they belong to the NRA too!

  3. #3
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375

    LTE drafted and submitted

    Editor:
    Re: “Something’s going wrong in Virginia” commentary Feb. 19: Mr. Stiles is perplexed about the impending repeal of the “one handgun a month” law. He cannot imagine why anyone would need that many guns.


    No, Mr. Stiles, at long last, something is going right in Virginia.

    This issue is not about how many handguns a citizen “needs”. It is not about guns at all. It is about the government’s ability to place a quantitative limitation on a right guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the government can place such a numerical limit on handguns, then why could it not place a similar limit on the number of times you are permitted to vote or the number of times you are permitted to invoke your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination or unreasonable search and seizure? A “right” which is limited by government is not a “right” at all; it is “permission” … easily granted and just as easily revoked.

    If Mr. Stiles is really concerned about the number of deaths in Virginia, I would suggest that he support a government limit on the number of miles which each citizen is permitted to drive each month. That should be easy, as the operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the Commonwealth and not a constitutional right. Drunk driving, road rage, texting, et. al. account for far more Virginia deaths each year than do hand guns.

    P.S. The “urban cowboy” will continue stick his gun in your face, regardless of any law. Criminals don’t care about the law; only law-abiding citizens do.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    Very nice LTE USNA69!
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Something's going wrong in Virginia

    Let's all read the commentary here:

    Something's going wrong in Virginia
    The legislature is set to repeal the one-handgun-a-month limit. I don't understand this at all.

    Outside of collectors, do you know anyone who needs more than 12 handguns a year? Outside of child-haters, do you know anyone who needs more than 12 abortions a year? Isn't a person who thinks she needs so many handguns someone to be avoided rather than pandered to? Isn't a person who thinks she needs so many abortions someone to be avoided rather than pandered to?

    My father eventually broke with the NRA as being too radical on gun rights. That's too funny. What would your father think of the GOA? This legislative proposal continues the insanity that caused my Marine father to say "enough." Leave no Freedom behind.

    I live in a community at the edge of some lawless folks. Many of them are armed. I'll grant them their one gun a month and glance around nervously under the neon of a gas station canopy as I fill my car's tank. But why do they need more handguns than that? What possible societal good do more weapons provide? Fundamental right aren't determined by "need" -- we who are free choose of our own free will how to live our lives.

    In the debate on this bill to repeal the limit, Sen. Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax, observed that anyone buying one handgun a month for the past 20 years, the maximum allowed during the time the law has been in effect, would have 240 handguns today.

    "If you need more than 240 handguns, something is wrong with you," Saslaw said. "Something has gone terribly wrong in your life."

    With the progress of this legislation, something is going terribly wrong in Virginia.

    Anyone who needs to quote approvingly of Dick Saslaw has something going terribly wrong in his head. Get help.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    Very nice LTE USNA69!
    I concur!

    BTW, therapy, how should one interpret your tag line about whether the founders were armed in John Adams' tavern? Are we to think that they were sitting around unarmed, but unsure of the reason, or that they were always armed regardless of where they might go, and when they saw the "No Guns Allowed" sign on the tavern door, removed it and handed it to the proprieter as they seated themselves and ordered up dinner and, as USAN69 would say, "Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses."?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    BTW, therapy, how should one interpret your tag line about whether the founders were armed in John Adams' tavern? Are we to think that they were sitting around unarmed, but unsure of the reason, or that they were always armed regardless of where they might go, and when they saw the "No Guns Allowed" sign on the tavern door, removed it and handed it to the proprieter as they seated themselves and ordered up dinner and, as USAN69 would say, "Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses."?

    Men from that era understood the immorality of disarming people. The proprietor knew that almost everyone carried weapons out of necessity and that disarming them invited violence against them. We say "His property, his rules!" but is that really the right argument? I say it is not. Are property rights more important than life itself? I think not.
    Last edited by 230therapy; 02-22-2012 at 09:26 PM.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    Men from that era understood the immorality of disarming people. The proprietor knew that almost everyone carried weapons out of necessity and that disarming them invited violence against them. We say "His property, his rules!" but is that really the right argument? I say it is not. Are property rights more important than life itself? I think not.
    Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

    I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

    The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

    I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

    The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    what he said
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

    I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

    The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.
    As one of the most outspoken Private Property Rights people here....

    Grapeshot has convinced me that there is a tremendous difference between a piece of property with a sign that says "Trespassers will be tied up and told they have a purdy mouth" and one that says "Come in, spend your money but leave your gun in the car".
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-23-2012 at 10:51 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.
    Discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin is ILLEGAL (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment) but discrimination based on exercise of the 2nd Amendment is not.

    The Constitution is not a Chinese buffet.

    I am also appalled that companies (private or public) can make and enforce POLICIES which demand you to sacrifice or suspend your rights as a condition of employment. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate for employment based on race, color, creed, sex or national origin... but not illegal to disallow exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

    This country (and a lot of the people in it) is certifiable.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

    I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

    The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    Discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin is ILLEGAL (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment) but discrimination based on exercise of the 2nd Amendment is not.

    The Constitution is not a Chinese buffet.

    I am also appalled that companies (private or public) can make and enforce POLICIES which demand you to sacrifice or suspend your rights as a condition of employment. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate for employment based on race, color, creed, sex or national origin... but not illegal to disallow exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

    This country (and a lot of the people in it) is certifiable.
    No the Constitution is not a Chinese buffet, but it is subject to a seasonably adjusted menu - the original BoR was 10 such points, now how many? Add to that federal laws which have include handicapped and age considerations and the menu expands further.

    Shopping Centers and the like that wish to limit/restrict the RKBA should close their doors to the general public and only allow their family and invited friends to shop there - not to be confused with "membership clubs" that must still abide by the law of the land.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    the original BoR was 10 such points, now how many?
    Bill of Rights?

    Still just ten. The only ten we need.
    Add to that federal laws which have include handicapped and age considerations and the menu expands further.
    Aside from general considerations of "personhood" being inherent of enjoyment of such rights, most federal laws are in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The "commerce clause" has been abused an unimaginable number of times to do an end-around on the rule of law.
    Shopping Centers and the like that wish to limit/restrict the RKBA should close their doors to the general public and only allow their family and invited friends to shop there - not to be confused with "membership clubs" that must still abide by the law of the land.
    Agreed.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    Bill of Rights?

    Still just ten. The only ten we need.Aside from general considerations of "personhood" being inherent of enjoyment of such rights, most federal laws are in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The "commerce clause" has been abused an unimaginable number of times to do an end-around on the rule of law.Agreed.
    Below is what I prefer:

    Congress shall make no law ...
    Please stop.

    Thank you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    ++++++ to Grape and Repeater.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    Bill of Rights?

    Still just ten. The only ten we need.

    There are a lot of female and African-American members of this forum that would probably VIGOROUSLY disagree with your statement.

    As would I.

    I think the 13th, 15th, 19th, 22nd, 24th and 26th Amendments are pretty good things...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •