What Virginia Gun Laws are unconstitutional, post MacDonald?

Thundar · Jun 29, 2010

The Donkey said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/scotus_ruling_will_guide_virgi.html

Remember: hahahahahahaha

I remember Donkey.

If Ken Brady were serious he would amend his brief and indicate that there is no compelling state interest in taking away the fundamental rights of law abiding citizens. But no, that isn't as important as keeping those dangerous weapons that just might accidentally go off and hit a child that happens to be on the campus.

Dreamer · Jun 29, 2010

The Donkey said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/scotus_ruling_will_guide_virgi.html

Remember: hahahahahahaha

The replies to this article are telling. The pro-McDonald posts are all well-thought-out and based in the Law and History.

The negative comments are all knee-jerk hyperbole, and threats of violence and assassination attempts against government officials.

No wonder the "anti gun" folks don't want anyone having guns--many of them are sociopaths with SERIOUS anger-control issues and homicidal tendencies...

TFred · Jun 29, 2010

The Donkey said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/scotus_ruling_will_guide_virgi.html

From the quoted blog:

Both of Virginia's senators and 8 of its 11 Congressional representatives signed a friend of the court brief urging the court to strike down a restrictive Chicago gun law, the victorious side in the case.

And yet, both of Virginia's senators blindly followed their pied pipers in confirming Sotomayor who voted to essentially repeal the Second Amendment, and I have absolutely no doubt that both will vote to confirm Kagan who would certainly have voted the same.

These two must be completely devoid of any conscience whatsoever.

TFred

paul@paul-fisher.com · Jun 29, 2010

TFred said:
And yet, both of Virginia's senators blindly followed their pied pipers in confirming Sotomayor who voted to essentially repeal the Second Amendment, and I have absolutely no doubt that both will vote to confirm Kagan who would certainly have voted the same.

These two must be completely devoid of any conscience whatsoever.

TFred

I'm not trying to start a fight here but the role of the Senate is to 'advise and consent'. I personally do not see much wiggle room is the President wants someone in the Judiciary.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it, just saying that is the law of the land.

peter nap · Jun 29, 2010

Dreamer said:
The replies to this article are telling. The pro-McDonald posts are all well-thought-out and based in the Law and History.

The negative comments are all knee-jerk hyperbole, and threats of violence and assassination attempts against government officials.

No wonder the "anti gun" folks don't want anyone having guns--many of them are sociopaths with SERIOUS anger-control issues and homicidal tendencies...

It is a little disturbing to read.

TFred · Jun 29, 2010

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
I'm not trying to start a fight here but the role of the Senate is to 'advise and consent'. I personally do not see much wiggle room is the President wants someone in the Judiciary.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it, just saying that is the law of the land.

Well if you read some of the dissents written by these folks, it is quite clear that they are not interpreting the law or the constitution, but re-writing it, and denying basic historical facts (head in the sand?) to do so. That is not in the job description of a Supreme Court Justice, and I do fully believe that evaluating such behavior falls well under the purview of "advise and consent".

Not only that, the lies these people spout in the hearings are so blatant, it would be funny, if it weren't so insulting. Kagan said something to the effect of she hadn't ever evaluated her own personal political leanings... what a load of... you know what. It is well beyond incredulous.

TFred

Grapeshot · Jun 29, 2010

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
I'm not trying to start a fight here but the role of the Senate is to 'advise and consent'. I personally do not see much wiggle room is the President wants someone in the Judiciary.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it, just saying that is the law of the land.

The president nominates, the senate confirms or denies - considerable "wiggle" room.

http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/4/4/652

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf

Yata hey

peter nap · Jun 29, 2010

Grapeshot said:
The president nominates, the senate confirms or denies - considerable "wiggle" room.

http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/4/4/652

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf

Yata hey

Just say no!
I see a lot of room there.

The Donkey · Jun 29, 2010

peter nap said:
It is a little disturbing to read.

Just asked the Post to pull down the post threatening Cuccinelli.

nova · Jun 29, 2010

peter nap said:
It is a little disturbing to read.

Anti-gun people suffer from a psychological condition called projection. They don't trust themselves with firearms because they're crazy and can't control themselves, so they "project" that view onto others and think everyone else are like them and can't be trusted.

Dreamer · Jun 29, 2010

The Donkey said:
Just asked the Post to pull down the post threatening Cuccinelli.

Personally, I would have contacted the FBI. As a public threat made against an elected official using the Internet, that post DEFINITELY falls under Federal jurisdiction...

I can see the HEADLINE now:

Anti-Gun Washington Post Subscriber Charged with Making Internet Death Threats Against VA AG...

In a perfect world, these insane anti-2A sociopaths would be treated like the traitorous criminals they REALLY are...

TFred · Jun 29, 2010

Dreamer said:
Personally, I would have contacted the FBI. As a public threat made against an elected official using the Internet, that post DEFINITELY falls under Federal jurisdiction...

I can see the HEADLINE now:

Anti-Gun Washington Post Subscriber Charged with Making Internet Death Threats Against VA AG...

In a perfect world, these insane anti-2A sociopaths would be treated like the traitorous criminals they REALLY are...

Apparently the WaPo doesn't much care, the threatening post is still there as of now.

Betcha they'd have pulled it down if it was someone they like, oh, say Eric Holder, etc...

TFred

Thundar · Jul 1, 2010

Cuccinelli Assassination post still up 01 July

The Donkey said:
Just asked the Post to pull down the post threatening Cuccinelli.

The quote for thos that have not read it:

If we're lucky someone with a large caliber handgun will shoot cucinelli and attempt to bring sanity back to VA.

Posted by: SoupLine | June 29, 2010 6:50 AM |

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/scotus_ruling_will_guide_virgi.html

It is very disturbing. It is 01 July and it is still posted. I reported it as abuse. Maybe others should do the same.

Wolf_shadow · Jul 1, 2010

I have reported it also. They don't seem to care. I bet if it was about someone they like it would have come down quickly.

What Virginia Gun Laws are unconstitutional, post MacDonald?

Thundar

Regular Member

Dreamer

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

TFred

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

The Donkey

New member

nova

Regular Member

Dreamer

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

Thundar

Regular Member

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member