Several good comments in reply. Worth the jump.
Thread: Reason Fails ... The Pilot
Imagine a Pilot without a rudder ....
Imagine a Editorialist without a brain ...
Reason fails in the gun debate
Wow, slamming both VCDL and MPPS #1 in one fell swoop.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.
Apparently, freedom is just too irrational a concept for the Pilot to accept.
Several good comments in reply. Worth the jump.
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.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.
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!
The opinion is a truly harsh indictment of a former lawyer. Accurate, too:
Yet, he's fit to serve as a Virginia Delegate? Really?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.
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?
Damn USNA69, that made my day. Reading the first post I was thinking something right along the same lines....
"Only Verified members may post comments to this article".
Bollocks. They painted themselves into a corner and want to "verify" respondents.
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.
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.