Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Reason Fails ... The Pilot

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Reason Fails ... The Pilot

    Imagine a Pilot without a rudder ....

    Imagine a Editorialist without a brain ...

    Reason fails in the gun debate

    Why should anyone be allowed to buy a crate full of rifles at a gun show without submitting to a criminal background check?

    Why should someone be allowed to drink alcohol while openly carrying a gun?

    Why should a gunowner be allowed to buy a 20-round magazine?

    It's hard to come up with rational arguments in favor of any of those positions, but the number and creativity of irrational arguments can't be appreciated without a visit to the legislative subcommittee that blocks common-sense public safety measures every year.

    And this year was no different. Consider these:

    Representatives for gun rights groups argued that without the convenience of gun shows, criminals will resort to organizing swap meets at McDonald's restaurants.

    They noted that without access to firearms, mentally deranged people will resort to making napalm bombs, igniting gasoline and using box cutters and maybe even "the jawbone of an ass" when they go on killing sprees.

    They suggested the high-capacity magazine used by the Tucson gunman actually made it easier for a bystander to grab it out of his hands, after he'd already fired all 31 bullets.

    Besides, another explained, killers limited to smaller magazines would become more efficient and better shots, leading to even greater bloodshed.

    Perhaps the five legislators on the panel recognized how ridiculous those claims are. But if that's the case, why did they kill a bill that would require background checks for all purchasers at gun shows?

    Why did they kill a bill prohibiting alcohol consumption for anyone carrying a gun?

    Why did they kill a bill banning the sale of magazines that hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition?

    Because, as one lawmaker explained, if gun-control advocates get their way just once, they'll keep coming back asking for more and more restrictions.

    If they are allowed to take away 20-round magazines, pretty soon they'll come after box cutters, the ingredients used to make napalm and, possibly, even jawbones.

    That's a slippery slope too dangerous to contemplate.
    Wow, slamming both VCDL and MPPS #1 in one fell swoop.

    Apparently, freedom is just too irrational a concept for the Pilot to accept.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Several good comments in reply. Worth the jump.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    House of Delegates gives OK to 'Castle Doctrine' bill - Morrissey complains

    Va. House OKs use of deadly force against home intruders

    The House of Delegates gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill authorizing the use of deadly force against an intruder who enters a home and threatens to injure the occupant.

    The bill, HB1573, introduced by Del. Bill Cleaveland, R-Botetourt County, would put the so-called “castle doctrine” into state law. It would allow a home’s occupant to use “any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force,” if an intruder commits an overt act toward the occupant that he reasonably believes would put him in imminent danger of bodily injury.

    The bill makes the occupant immune from civil liability for any resulting injuries or death.

    Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Richmond, objected that the measure would allow a disproportionate response to a minor provocation such as a hand slap.
    So, 'fighting' Joe Morrissey complained that HB1573 would allow 'a disproportionate response' to a so-called provocation? That's ironic considering Morrissey's colorful background.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Va. House OKs use of deadly force against home intruders

    So, 'fighting' Joe Morrissey complained that HB1573 would allow 'a disproportionate response' to a so-called provocation? That's ironic considering Morrissey's colorful background.
    Too bad the Aussies found out about him, or he might have just stayed there.

    Obviously Mr. Morrissey is worried that if he chooses to continue with his bad behavior, at some point in the future he may find himself facing the business end of a self-defense firearm. If I had his tendencies, I'd be worried too. No wonder the man is so staunchly anti-gun... he's a common criminal!

    TFred

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

    Read the Fourth Circuit opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Too bad the Aussies found out about him, or he might have just stayed there.

    Obviously Mr. Morrissey is worried that if he chooses to continue with his bad behavior, at some point in the future he may find himself facing the business end of a self-defense firearm. If I had his tendencies, I'd be worried too. No wonder the man is so staunchly anti-gun... he's a common criminal!

    TFred

    The opinion is a truly harsh indictment of a former lawyer. Accurate, too:

    Morrissey’s lack of candor, if not outright dishonesty, in dealings with this Court and those responsible for supervising the performance of his sentence is wholly unacceptable from an officer of the court. This Court and the public are entitled to rely on the honesty, integrity, and civility of counsel. Morrissey, however, has conclusively shown himself unworthy of this trust. Regardless of his past contributions to the community and the Bar, Morrissey’s proclivity for unprofessional and unethical conduct, his lack of candor before Judge Payne, the probation officer, and this panel, and his failure to acknowledge his misconduct renders him unfit to practice before the judges of this district.
    Yet, he's fit to serve as a Virginia Delegate? Really?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mountains of VA
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Yet, he's fit to serve as a Virginia Delegate? Really?
    Go figure.

    I'm curious, has he done anything that would preclude him from passing a background check either for a firearm purchase or a CHP?

  7. #7
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Election time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    The opinion is a truly harsh indictment of a former lawyer. Accurate, too:



    Yet, he's fit to serve as a Virginia Delegate? Really?
    Do you think maybe a big billboard in Joe's area, with the courts opinion in huge letters, would help him in his next election attempt?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mountains of VA
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by AtackDuck View Post
    Do you think maybe a big billboard in Joe's area, with the courts opinion in huge letters, would help him in his next election attempt?
    You ,sir, are a genius.

    He's not in my district, but I'll donate.
    Last edited by UglyGun; 02-07-2011 at 08:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375

    Rebuttal

    I submitted this to the Virginian-Pilot in rebuttal to that editorial. Remains to be seen if they will print it.

    Re: “Reason fails in the gun debate,” editorial Feb. 7: The first five words of your editorial told me everything I needed to know about what was coming: “Why should anyone be allowed …” The writer’s underlying precept seems to be that government “allows” us to engage in activities. He seems dumfounded that government continues to “allow” us to purchase guns and ammunition magazines and to consume alcohol while openly carrying firearms. He cannot conceive of any rational reason to “allow” us to do these things.
    Might I suggest that the writer take a moment to reread the Preamble to the Constitution? It is “We The People” who “allow” government to limit our activities within a strict set of rules. If the activity falls outside of that strict set of rules, it is none of government’s business. Government is instituted by The People not to create and confer fundamental rights; it is instituted to protect those rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
    Thomas Jefferson understood this with great clarity. Why cannot your editorial writer?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia
    Posts
    66
    Damn USNA69, that made my day. Reading the first post I was thinking something right along the same lines....

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

  12. #12
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    "Only Verified members may post comments to this article".

    Bollocks. They painted themselves into a corner and want to "verify" respondents.

    ****** move.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    "Only Verified members may post comments to this article".

    Bollocks. They painted themselves into a corner and want to "verify" respondents.

    ****** move.
    Apparently, a prospective commenter has to pass a background check before receiving permission to comment.

    How progressive.

  14. #14
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375

    OMG. They actually printed it today 14 Feb

    Quote Originally Posted by USNA69 View Post
    I submitted this to the Virginian-Pilot in rebuttal to that editorial. Remains to be seen if they will print it.

    Re: “Reason fails in the gun debate,” editorial Feb. 7: The first five words of your editorial told me everything I needed to know about what was coming: “Why should anyone be allowed …” The writer’s underlying precept seems to be that government “allows” us to engage in activities. He seems dumfounded that government continues to “allow” us to purchase guns and ammunition magazines and to consume alcohol while openly carrying firearms. He cannot conceive of any rational reason to “allow” us to do these things.
    Might I suggest that the writer take a moment to reread the Preamble to the Constitution? It is “We The People” who “allow” government to limit our activities within a strict set of rules. If the activity falls outside of that strict set of rules, it is none of government’s business. Government is instituted by The People not to create and confer fundamental rights; it is instituted to protect those rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
    Thomas Jefferson understood this with great clarity. Why cannot your editorial writer?
    It took them a week, but there it was this morning with only minor editing. There was a balancing LTE next to it, which probably explains the delay.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by USNA69 View Post
    It took them a week, but there it was this morning with only minor editing. There was a balancing LTE next to it, which probably explains the delay.


  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by UglyGun View Post
    He's not in my district, but I'll donate.
    me too
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by USNA69 View Post
    It took them a week, but there it was this morning with only minor editing. There was a balancing LTE next to it, which probably explains the delay.
    The limits of law

  18. #18
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Morrissey seeks to have law license reinstated

    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    The opinion is a truly harsh indictment of a former lawyer. Accurate, too:



    Yet, he's fit to serve as a Virginia Delegate? Really?
    It seems fighting Joe wants back in:

    Morrissey seeks to have law license reinstated
    A hearing is under way at the Virginia Supreme Court today as Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico, seeks to have his state law license reinstated.

    The former defense lawyer and Richmond’s commonwealth’s attorney from 1990 to 1994 had his license revoked in 2003.

Posting Permissions

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