DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
Sounds great to me.Defending the flock from the wolves.
How is that for a good reason?
Then again, I consider "because I want to" a good & sufficient reason.
Sounds great to me.Defending the flock from the wolves.
How is that for a good reason?
Gun guy?
I think he called you Gun Boy. I like Gun Guy better.
Originally (i.e., in 1789), each state was considered a sovereign entity which could do pretty much what ever it wished within its own territorial boundaries (as opposed to the U.S., which was not designed to be a territorially-defined government), and subject to its own constitution. Hence, a state could (and some did) have an established church and require the citizens to be members (or, as in Virginia, to pay taxes for the support thereof).
During the Twentieth Century, the United States invented the concept of "selective incorporation". What that did was to apply certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in the same way as they apply to the U.S. by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does apply to the states). They used the "due process clause" on the one hand to say that there is no particular "process" which is "due" when it comes to how states can treat citizens, and on the other hand to say that "substance" is a matter of "process". What was really going on when that happened was that the U.S. was weaseling out of the Bill of Rights by applying state law liberality to application of the Constitution to the U.S. E.g., saying that the right to free speech requires that the states don't punish newspaper reporters for their libel unless they be motivated by "actual malice". That's weaseling, because the Bill of Rights contains absolute statements. As to the U.S. as against any citizen, no regulatory authority (under the Constitution) can limit what anyone can say - there just can't be any federal law of defamation. The application of the principle was limited to those case opinions in which the U.S.Sup.Ct. has specifically identified the right to be affected.
Recently, in the Heller case, Mr. Justice Scalia announced the end of any of the final vestiges of the Bill of Rights. "Selective incorporation" no longer applies. Now, all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, subject to "reasonable regulation". The implication is that the U.S. is subject to the Bill of Rights in exactly the same way as the states are - that is to say, you have no "rights" in any absolute sense; your "rights" are subject to "reasonable regulation". What's "reasonable", you ask? Whatever the United States says it is, of course.
In elementary school, I was taught, "You can trust the policeman; the policeman is your friend!". Substitute "The United States" for "the policeman" in that sentence with the same meaning and effect.
We are entering a period of complex secret international conspiracies and politics by assassination, I'm afraid. As a history major, I'd say that I've seen the pattern several times before, and humans haven't really changed in the last eight thousand years of recorded history (other than having learned to move bigger and heavier things farther and faster). This is the last chance the people have to take back their government. If you want to have rights in any meaningful sense, you've got to act to preserve them, now. If you wait, all bets are off.
Give it up Gun Boy!
I have no reason to believe he is in any way racist.
stay safe.
I think he called you Gun Boy. I like Gun Guy better.
why would that have been racist?
why would that have been racist?
Originally (i.e., in 1789), each state was considered a sovereign entity which could do pretty much what ever it wished within its own territorial boundaries (as opposed to the U.S., which was not designed to be a territorially-defined government), and subject to its own constitution. Hence, a state could (and some did) have an established church and require the citizens to be members (or, as in Virginia, to pay taxes for the support thereof).
During the Twentieth Century, the United States invented the concept of "selective incorporation". What that did was to apply certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in the same way as they apply to the U.S. by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does apply to the states). They used the "due process clause" on the one hand to say that there is no particular "process" which is "due" when it comes to how states can treat citizens, and on the other hand to say that "substance" is a matter of "process". What was really going on when that happened was that the U.S. was weaseling out of the Bill of Rights by applying state law liberality to application of the Constitution to the U.S. E.g., saying that the right to free speech requires that the states don't punish newspaper reporters for their libel unless they be motivated by "actual malice". That's weaseling, because the Bill of Rights contains absolute statements. As to the U.S. as against any citizen, no regulatory authority (under the Constitution) can limit what anyone can say - there just can't be any federal law of defamation. The application of the principle was limited to those case opinions in which the U.S.Sup.Ct. has specifically identified the right to be affected.
Recently, in the Heller case, Mr. Justice Scalia announced the end of any of the final vestiges of the Bill of Rights. "Selective incorporation" no longer applies. Now, all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, subject to "reasonable regulation". The implication is that the U.S. is subject to the Bill of Rights in exactly the same way as the states are - that is to say, you have no "rights" in any absolute sense; your "rights" are subject to "reasonable regulation". What's "reasonable", you ask? Whatever the United States says it is, of course.
In elementary school, I was taught, "You can trust the policeman; the policeman is your friend!". Substitute "The United States" for "the policeman" in that sentence with the same meaning and effect.
We are entering a period of complex secret international conspiracies and politics by assassination, I'm afraid. As a history major, I'd say that I've seen the pattern several times before, and humans haven't really changed in the last eight thousand years of recorded history (other than having learned to move bigger and heavier things farther and faster). This is the last chance the people have to take back their government. If you want to have rights in any meaningful sense, you've got to act to preserve them, now. If you wait, all bets are off.
why would that have been racist?
As has been noted, it's a long story. You sort of had to have been there to know what it's about. If you have nothing better to do on June 21st, you are invited to come and watch the next exciting chapter of the ongoing saga.
(Yes, I'm being cryptic. Check your PMs to read a better explanation.)
stay safe.
Now that's not nice!
stay safe.
Now that's not nice!
stay safe.
§ 18.2-283. Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship.
If any person carry any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place he shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.
This law creates a very strange possibility:
Let us assume that a church is very gun-friendly and welcomes, even encourages, attendees to OC or CC. As the law is written, anyone possesing any of the listed weapons and attending this church during a service could be charged with a Class 4 misdemeanor by any LEO observing it, regardless of the church's feelings about the matter.
In an extreme scenario, the church might even incorporate some or all of the listed weapons into its religious services. That would create a possible, but admittedly unlikely, situation in which LEOs could enter the church, disrupt the service, and detain or arrest a participant in the service. A determination of "good and sufficient reason" would be made later in court.
Even more bizarre, consider the possibility that the pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, etc. is carrying. Under the law, LEOs could interrupt the service and "frog march" the cleric out of the church in custody. Again, a determination of "good and sufficient reason" would be made later in court.
This law would seem to violate the "free exercise" provision, given that the Commonwealth has deemed that the same conduct which is "illegal" inside of the church happens to be completely legal outside of the church.
This is a law which desperately needs to be repealed, and we should address it beginning now and on to next Lobby Day.