Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Governor Kaine (D) says Second Amendment does NOT provide individual right!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/13511132.html

    State leaders have opposing views on Second Amendment debate

    By Rob Richardson, NBC12 News

    State leaders have opposing views on Second Amendment debate

    By Rob Richardson, NBC12 News

    Two statewide politicians find themselves on opposite sides of a debate over the second amendment: the right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a debate on the topic in March.

    For decades D.C. residents have been unable to own or posses handguns. That could be about to change. A few years ago, a D.C. resident fed up with the district's ban on handguns went to court to challenge the law. He won favorable rulings and finally a D.C. appeals court sided with him, agreeing that the second amendment, right to bear arms was an individual right.

    Other federal appeals courts have issued different opinions.

    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in March.

    “This is the most important second amendment case in all of history,” says Bob McDonnell, Virginia Attorney General-R, has filed a friend of the court brief supporting an individuals right to bear arms and supporting overturning the longstading handgun ban in D.C.

    “Virginia has pretty much always understood it to be an individual right and so the gun laws in Virginia have reflected that philosophy,” says McDonnell.

    Virginia Governor Tim Kaine doesn't agree and doesn't advocate overturning D.C.'s ban. Gov. Kaine says, “I don't support overturning what dc has done in this instance but the ag has by statute clear ability to file legal briefs in his capacity as attorney general and you know that could lead him to file briefs i don't completely agree with but the statute is very plain.”

    U.S. Senator, Virginia-D, Jim Webb appears to agree with McDonnell that the handgun ban in D.C.should be overturned. Sen. Webb says, “What they've done in my opinion is put a burden on law abiding people who have difficulty in defending themselves.”

    Arguments are set in the case for March with a decision expected in late June.



  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    It amazes me that someone who went to Harvard Law School and spent 17 years working as a Lawyer can have so little understanding of the Constitution.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    MarkNH wrote:
    It amazes me that someone who went to Harvard Law School and spent 17 years working as a Lawyer can have so little understanding of the Constitution.
    You only see what you want to see, or even better, you only see what you are willing to see. To be truly objective, to be truly honest, is a an indescribable character trait that all great and good men possess. IMHO.



  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    In that book that I have made here occasional reference to, A Certain Ambiguity, the comment is made that people now act according to self-interest and only then select the available philosophical premises to validate that action. This, rather than acting from logical conclusions of philosophical premises.

    Thus, egalitarianism validates tyranny - just to make sure they're all really equal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    In that book that I have made here occasional reference to, A Certain Ambiguity, the comment is made that people now act according to self-interest and only then select the available philosophical premises to validate that action. This, rather than acting from logical conclusions of philosophical premises.

    Thus, egalitarianism validates tyranny - just to make sure they're all really equal.
    I can see that. I've often wondered why people support philosophies that don't work, like socialism, high taxes, etc. It's because they see a homeless guy and can't stand the sight but don't want to do anything about it themselves so who then, why the government. What system supports that? Socialism, therefore I'm a socialist even though history shows how miserable a system it is. I really believe the heart of socialism is not concern for others but a self centered desire to be unencumbered with things outside my personal desires. Here's some money, you take care of that for me so I can go off and do my thing.

    A conclusion that I've come to is that all forms of socialism, even democratic, is in fact tyranny. Which is in line with your last sentence that egalitarianism (socialism) validates tyranny. We all can see that fascism and communism is tyranical but what about democratic socialism, it is after all democratic right? But the dictator in that tyranny is the majority who dictates what the minority shall do, regardless of it being right or wrong. That's why I believe in the system we have; a Constitutional Republic. Wherein the Constitution enumerates and guarantees our God given rights cannot be violated by majority vote.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    In that book that I have made here occasional reference to, A Certain Ambiguity, the comment is made that people now act according to self-interest and only then select the available philosophical premises to validate that action. This, rather than acting from logical conclusions of philosophical premises.

    Thus, egalitarianism validates tyranny - just to make sure they're all really equal.
    I can see that. I've often wondered why people support philosophies that don't work, like socialism, high taxes, etc. It's because they see a homeless guy and can't stand the sight but don't want to do anything about it themselves so who then, why the government. What system supports that? Socialism, therefore I'm a socialist even though history shows how miserable a system it is. I really believe the heart of socialism is not concern for others but a self centered desire to be unencumbered with things outside my personal desires. Here's some money, you take care of that for me so I can go off and do my thing.

    A conclusion that I've come to is that all forms of socialism, even democratic, is in fact tyranny. Which is in line with your last sentence that egalitarianism (socialism) validates tyranny. We all can see that fascism and communism is tyranical but what about democratic socialism, it is after all democratic right? But the dictator in that tyranny is the majority who dictates what the minority shall do, regardless of it being right or wrong. That's why I believe in the system we have; a Constitutional Republic. Wherein the Constitution enumerates and guarantees our God given rights cannot be violated by majority vote.
    Agreed, and good post!!! I believe that many tyrannical politicians take whatever actions they want, for either personal or political reasons, and then try to adjust their beliefs to align with those actions.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Right Coast
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Tim Kaine is a typical liberal demoncrap politico who legislates off emotion rather than good sense. If you look at his record, you will notice he will usually vote the national party line on just about every issue. Personally, I can't say that his stance on firearms ownership surprises me in any way.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    It's even better when they can figure out a way to have someone else pay for it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    So much for the pretense that the Virginia Democratic Party can be trusted to protect the rights of gun owners. Seems to me Gov. Warner assured us that Kaine would not threaten gun rights. Be prepared for Ms. Rodham Clinton to try to pull the same wool over everyone's eyes. Who knows, she may even putout a commercial of her duck hunting. Wouldn't that he a hoot.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    MarkNH wrote:
    It amazes me that someone who went to Harvard Law School and spent 17 years working as a Lawyer can have so little understanding of the Constitution.
    You only see what you want to see, or even better, you only see what you are willing to see. To be truly objective, to be truly honest, is a an indescribable character trait that all great and good men possess. IMHO.
    Good words. They apply to both sides of this argument. The Second Amendment guarantees your right as a citizen of the U.S.to own and use firearms within the borders of this country (it may be a universalhuman right, but the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens within its territories). However, it isby no meansan absolute, and you as a citizen are subject to binding law on how and when it is acceptible to carry and use a firearm. Such laws are just as long as they do not bar you, either by the letter of the law or for practical purposes, from owning and using a firearm in a manner that does not infringe on the safety ofother lawful citizensaround you.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Neplusultra wrote:
    MarkNH wrote:
    It amazes me that someone who went to Harvard Law School and spent 17 years working as a Lawyer can have so little understanding of the Constitution.
    You only see what you want to see, or even better, you only see what you are willing to see. To be truly objective, to be truly honest, is a an indescribable character trait that all great and good men possess. IMHO.
    Good words. They apply to both sides of this argument. The Second Amendment guarantees your right as a citizen of the U.S.to own and use firearms within the borders of this country (it may be a universalhuman right, but the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens within its territories). However, it isby no meansan absolute, and you as a citizen are subject to binding law on how and when it is acceptible to carry and use a firearm. Such laws are just as long as they do not bar you, either by the letter of the law or for practical purposes, from owning and using a firearm in a manner that does not infringe on the safety ofother lawful citizensaround you.
    Very well and objectively put describing the actual sictuaion. +1.

    There are two key passages in that: "your right", and "in a manner that does not infringe on the safety of other lawful citizens around you". Personally, I'd strike the word "owning", because I think that's really a rights-restrictive viewpoint within the realm of normal small-arms. I'd also note the discrepancy between the "binding law on how and when it is acceptible to carry and use a firearm" and the constitutions of both the United States as well as the individual states (like section 13 of the Virginia constitution).

    It is definitely a concern when the governor does not recognize personal liberty clearly enshrined in both the second amendment of the constitution and section 13 of the Virginia constitution. Moreover, I'm not familiar with any VPC/Brady/Joyce/Saul Cornell literature which attempts to claim that state constitution passages analagous to the second amendment are to prevent states from disarming themselves. Anyone familiar with works in which they attempt a stab at that?

    Also, the latter phrase in your passage regarding the safety of other lawful citizens is the public health approach used by the Joyce foundation, Brady campaign, VPC, etc and which hinges on a shift from immediate safety to safety from potential harm. This is much the same way that DC has attempted to control the concealment of arms not by outlawing the carrying of concealed arms but by outlawing the carry of arms which are concealable. Potential for harm is also how the VT review panel managed to recommend closing the so-called "gun show loophole"


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    There is no question that owning and carrying a firearm carries a great deal of resposibility.After all you have the power of life and death within reach. In cases where people have used firearms irresponsibly there have been stiff punishments, This only seems to apply to other wise responsible gun owners, but not to a "gang banger" punk who will gun someone down for looking athim wrong ,"dissing him".In this case we are told to understand his "anger". There are obviously two different sets of standards. Until such time as all are held to the same,higher set of standards lawful gun owners will continue to be blamed for virtually all firearms violence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    stryth wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    Neplusultra wrote:
    MarkNH wrote:
    It amazes me that someone who went to Harvard Law School and spent 17 years working as a Lawyer can have so little understanding of the Constitution.
    You only see what you want to see, or even better, you only see what you are willing to see. To be truly objective, to be truly honest, is a an indescribable character trait that all great and good men possess. IMHO.
    Good words. They apply to both sides of this argument. The Second Amendment guarantees your right as a citizen of the U.S.to own and use firearms within the borders of this country (it may be a universalhuman right, but the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens within its territories). However, it isby no meansan absolute, and you as a citizen are subject to binding law on how and when it is acceptible to carry and use a firearm. Such laws are just as long as they do not bar you, either by the letter of the law or for practical purposes, from owning and using a firearm in a manner that does not infringe on the safety ofother lawful citizensaround you.
    Very well and objectively put describing the actual sictuaion. +1.

    There are two key passages in that: "your right", and "in a manner that does not infringe on the safety of other lawful citizens around you". Personally, I'd strike the word "owning", because I think that's really a rights-restrictive viewpoint within the realm of normal small-arms. I'd also note the discrepancy between the "binding law on how and when it is acceptible to carry and use a firearm" and the constitutions of both the United States as well as the individual states (like section 13 of the Virginia constitution).

    It is definitely a concern when the governor does not recognize personal liberty clearly enshrined in both the second amendment of the constitution and section 13 of the Virginia constitution. Moreover, I'm not familiar with any VPC/Brady/Joyce/Saul Cornell literature which attempts to claim that state constitution passages analagous to the second amendment are to prevent states from disarming themselves. Anyone familiar with works in which they attempt a stab at that?

    Also, the latter phrase in your passage regarding the safety of other lawful citizens is the public health approach used by the Joyce foundation, Brady campaign, VPC, etc and which hinges on a shift from immediate safety to safety from potential harm. This is much the same way that DC has attempted to control the concealment of arms not by outlawing the carrying of concealed arms but by outlawing the carry of arms which are concealable. Potential for harm is also how the VT review panel managed to recommend closing the so-called "gun show loophole"
    Remember, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms predates the formation of this nation. You must keep in mind the intent and period in time that our foundations were laid to form this great country. The idea of hunting from food and using arms in defense of one's self, family, community, and property were givens. These were rights that were as natural as breathing and were not even considerations when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

    The Second Amendment warns government that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. It had nothing to do with hunting or "normal" self defense. It had everything to do with only two things. To offer the militia for state and national defense should the need arise and to stand as a wall of protection against a government gone bad.

    That's really all it is.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    I've blogged this at http://amcit.wordpress.com/2008/01/1...o-correct-him/

    Feel free to add comments and suggestions. If you feel I've done a decent job of showing the fallacy of logic, feel free to pass on to others. If you have other input, please leave a comment.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    I've blogged this at http://amcit.wordpress.com/2008/01/1...o-correct-him/

    Feel free to add comments and suggestions. If you feel I've done a decent job of showing the fallacy of logic, feel free to pass on to others. If you have other input, please leave a comment.
    Looks good!

    Thanks for the compliments to the USMC under, "About Amcit."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Governor Kool Aid Drinker, I mean Kaine.....
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    I just sent this to Kaine.



    Governor Kaine;

    You currently occupy an office in a state which is widely known as the crucible of American liberty. Virginians are privy to a proud and deep history of everything that is good and right about America. And I am proud to have a long line of lineage in this, my native state.

    Among those traditions is the absolute right to keep and bear arms in defense of the commonwealth and as a safeguard against government gone bad. Our founders knew very well of this and their writings are rich in much supportive prose.

    I am writing you because I am concerned about your stance on these rights owned by Virginians and your perceived opinion that our rights must be checked and controlled by those who we have selected to do our bidding.

    The so-called gun show loophole is just that. It is so-called because it does not exist in fact. As I'm certain you are well aware, any Virginian can sell a firearm in a private sale at his discretion. No background checks have been needed or performed in the past and guess what? Our state has had no real problems with this, either. You give the reasoning for your stance based upon the tragic incident at Virginia Tech last year. However in that case, Cho's weapons were obtained legally, so why would you be of a mind to control private sales?

    I can only assume the reason is because you and your administration wish to impose further controls and restrictions upon Virginians and their God-given and Constitutionally protected rights. And sir, if this be the case, your actions will not bode well with us. We Virginians are most suspect of those who jump on the bandwagon of political gain at the price of our liberties.

    Two universal truths come to mind. Never enter someone's dwelling and tell them how to arrange their furniture. And, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (Benjamin Franklin).

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

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