Jim Moran claims pro-gun activists promote "wholesale slaughter"

Moran and GFZ

Repeater said:

Has anyone open carried near Moran, perhaps at a townhall meeting? If yes, what was his body language like? How did he treat you?

He seems very bigoted toward self-defense or self-reliance.

Click to expand...

All of Mr. Moran's town hall meetings are held in Gun Free Zones like South Lakes Highschool where he held his town hall meeting on health care reform. During this meeting he was surrounded by SEIU thugs and MoveOn dot Org types. I have video proof btw...

Freeflight said:

2aforall,

Driving is not a constitutionally protected activity, but stopping everyone to process them through a Papers checking activity is a Direct and gross violation of the 4th (Imho)

"One could envision LEOs stationed at the exits of restaurant parking lots to check every driver for fitness to operate a motor vehicle who is about to enter upon the public highway. That might improve the ratio of DUI/Drivers Checked."

And your okay with that concept!!!??!?!?? I really hope you have your sarcasm on as you wrote this.. (I couldn't tell)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franlkin.

Click to expand...

Driving a motor vehicle while impaired is not an essential liberty. In order for a free society to function, it is necessary that all members respect each other's rights to the point of refraining from conduct which might hazard those rights. If an individual chooses not to render such respect, then steps need to be taken to curtail such conduct. Proactive (DUI check) measures are better than reactive (arrest for vehicular manslaughter) ones.

As for the parking lot strategy, think of it as a version of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk.". The indivdual has the opportunity to exercise good judgement by opting to not drive, but chooses not to. Some would argue that s/he is too impaired to make a rational choice. But the other motorists (and their passengers) are not obligated to expose themselves to, nor able to avoid, such a risk. If you saw someone you thought was drunk get into and try to drive their car, would you call 911?

We often lament on this board that the thing LEOs are best at is showing up post facto to draw chalk outlines and take reports. They get a lot of practice on the side of the highway.

Our other favorite is that we are responsible for our own safety. I'm pretty sure we don't mean "Hooray for me and the hell with you.".

2a4all said:

Driving a motor vehicle while impaired is not an essential liberty. In order for a free society to function, it is necessary that all members respect each other's rights to the point of refraining from conduct which might hazard those rights. If an individual chooses not to render such respect, then steps need to be taken to curtail such conduct. Proactive (DUI check) measures are better than reactive (arrest for vehicular manslaughter) ones.

As for the parking lot strategy, think of it as a version of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk.". The indivdual has the opportunity to exercise good judgement by opting to not drive, but chooses not to. Some would argue that s/he is too impaired to make a rational choice. But the other motorists (and their passengers) are not obligated to expose themselves to, nor able to avoid, such a risk. If you saw someone you thought was drunk get into and try to drive their car, would you call 911?

We often lament on this board that the thing LEOs are best at is showing up post facto to draw chalk outlines and take reports. They get a lot of practice on the side of the highway.

Our other favorite is that we are responsible for our own safety. I'm pretty sure we don't mean "Hooray for me and the hell with you.".

Click to expand...

The problem with you comments is that the same "proactive" measures that claim to protect liberty are also highly destructive towards that same liberty. That is why we as a society have collectively decided that there are prices that are too high to pay.

A police state can be incredibly efficient and effective at stopping all manner of crimes, but it also becomes efficient and effective at destroying liberty. The way to prevent that is by placing clear limits on police powers to stop and question people without pre-existing evidence that they are violating the law. Those limits ultimately result in the police being primarily reactive instead of proactive.

But that's not a bad thing. To make the police more proactive would be to infringe the rights and liberties of the People. Yes, it increases the possibility that someone will abuse their rights and harm someone else, but that alone doesn't justify infringing everyone's rights.

If you think that the police are justified in randomly stopping and checking drivers because they might be irresponsible with their cars (such as by drinking and driving), then would you similarly argue that they are justified in randomly stopping and checking people who are legally armed? How about demanding proof of ID or legal residency from people walking down the street?

The price of liberty is that some people will abuse it. The only way to eliminate the abuse is to eliminate the liberty.

grylnsmn said:

The problem with you comments is that the same "proactive" measures that claim to protect liberty are also highly destructive towards that same liberty. That is why we as a society have collectively decided that there are prices that are too high to pay.

A police state can be incredibly efficient and effective at stopping all manner of crimes, but it also becomes efficient and effective at destroying liberty. The way to prevent that is by placing clear limits on police powers to stop and question people without pre-existing evidence that they are violating the law. Those limits ultimately result in the police being primarily reactive instead of proactive.

But that's not a bad thing. To make the police more proactive would be to infringe the rights and liberties of the People. Yes, it increases the possibility that someone will abuse their rights and harm someone else, but that alone doesn't justify infringing everyone's rights.

If you think that the police are justified in randomly stopping and checking drivers because they might be irresponsible with their cars (such as by drinking and driving), then would you similarly argue that they are justified in randomly stopping and checking people who are legally armed? How about demanding proof of ID or legal residency from people walking down the street?

The price of liberty is that some people will abuse it. The only way to eliminate the abuse is to eliminate the liberty.

Click to expand...

And in that short summary, you have accurately described the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and their TSA goons.

TFred

2a4all said:

Driving a motor vehicle while impaired is not an essential liberty. In order for a free society to function, it is necessary that all members respect each other's rights to the point of refraining from conduct which might hazard those rights. If an individual chooses not to render such respect, then steps need to be taken to curtail such conduct. Proactive (DUI check) measures are better than reactive (arrest for vehicular manslaughter) ones.

As for the parking lot strategy, think of it as a version of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk.". The indivdual has the opportunity to exercise good judgement by opting to not drive, but chooses not to. Some would argue that s/he is too impaired to make a rational choice. But the other motorists (and their passengers) are not obligated to expose themselves to, nor able to avoid, such a risk. If you saw someone you thought was drunk get into and try to drive their car, would you call 911?

We often lament on this board that the thing LEOs are best at is showing up post facto to draw chalk outlines and take reports. They get a lot of practice on the side of the highway.

Our other favorite is that we are responsible for our own safety. I'm pretty sure we don't mean "Hooray for me and the hell with you.".

Click to expand...

Been reading again, haven't you?:uhoh:

Shockoe Bottom violence ==> checkpoints

TFred said:

And in that short summary, you have accurately described the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and their TSA goons.

TFred

Click to expand...

Shockoe Bottom safer, but some question methods used

Police Chief Bryan T. Norwood also confirmed that a police checkpoint had been set up not far away earlier that evening for vehicles coming off Interstate 95 onto Oliver Hill Way. A police spokesman later said that 619 vehicles had passed through the checkpoint and 211 of them were screened. Twelve summonses were issued, and 21 misdemeanor charges were filed. One felony warrant and seven misdemeanor warrants were served, he said.

Several nightclub owners and others said that type of response is excessive, and not taken in other neighborhoods.

"It looks like a war zone down here on Friday and Saturday nights," said Charles Tarrer, owner of Posh Restaurant, a nightclub on East Main Street. "It's killing us."

Click to expand...

And this:

A request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act was made to a Richmond police spokesman on July 27 for information on overtime hours worked by police in Shockoe Bottom and the cost of the overtime. Police have not provided that information.

Click to expand...

When cops can do things like this in secret, that's a police state.

Inquiring minds might like to know: how many weapons were [illegally] seized?

peter nap said:

Been reading again, haven't you?:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Never read this, but I take it you don't agree with it. But yet, you go to great lengths to look out for your friends. If you see someone who is drunk attempting to drive, would you step in to avert a possibly serious incident? HAve you ever driven (on the highway) when your health status might have been an impairment?

grylnsmn said:

The problem with you comments is that the same "proactive" measures that claim to protect liberty are also highly destructive towards that same liberty. That is why we as a society have collectively decided that there are prices that are too high to pay.

A police state can be incredibly efficient and effective at stopping all manner of crimes, but it also becomes efficient and effective at destroying liberty. The way to prevent that is by placing clear limits on police powers to stop and question people without pre-existing evidence that they are violating the law. Those limits ultimately result in the police being primarily reactive instead of proactive.

But that's not a bad thing. To make the police more proactive would be to infringe the rights and liberties of the People. Yes, it increases the possibility that someone will abuse their rights and harm someone else, but that alone doesn't justify infringing everyone's rights.

If you think that the police are justified in randomly stopping and checking drivers because they might be irresponsible with their cars (such as by drinking and driving), then would you similarly argue that they are justified in randomly stopping and checking people who are legally armed? How about demanding proof of ID or legal residency from people walking down the street?

The price of liberty is that some people will abuse it. The only way to eliminate the abuse is to eliminate the liberty.

Click to expand...

Sadly, you are correct, but it's not a binary choice. Abuse can be mitigated, which is a good thing. Our history is rife with examples of attempts to do this, some more successful than others.

However, since I'm talking about the driving privilege, a permitted activity, it does not follow that I condone infringement of individual rights. Walking down the street isn't driving. It's (much) more difficult to observe than driving, but if a LEO can determine that a person is carrying a concealed handgun, s/he can be asked for a permit. Conservation Officers can ask those engaged in hunting or fishing for their permits. (When they were called Game Wardens, many perceived this to be their primary function.) When a license is required to do something, the licensees consent to enforcement of the associated rules, which might also require them to prove that they are exempt (e.g. hunting on own property).

Perhaps one of our "liberties" is the right to choose to engage in permitted activities.

2a4all said:

Never read this, but I take it you don't agree with it. But yet, you go to great lengths to look out for your friends. If you see someone who is drunk attempting to drive, would you step in to avert a possibly serious incident?

Answer: Nope! I'm a great believer in adults doing what they feel best. Possibilities are just another tool of busybodies.

HAve you ever driven (on the highway) when your health status might have been an impairment?

Answer: Health status? Been 40 years or so but sure enough drunk. People weren't as concerned about it then and minded their own business.

Click to expand...

...

2a4all said:

Sadly, you are correct, but it's not a binary choice. Abuse can be mitigated, which is a good thing. Our history is rife with examples of attempts to do this, some more successful than others.

However, since I'm talking about the driving privilege, a permitted activity, it does not follow that I condone infringement of individual rights. Walking down the street isn't driving. It's (much) more difficult to observe than driving, but if a LEO can determine that a person is carrying a concealed handgun, s/he can be asked for a permit. Conservation Officers can ask those engaged in hunting or fishing for their permits. (When they were called Game Wardens, many perceived this to be their primary function.) When a license is required to do something, the licensees consent to enforcement of the associated rules, which might also require them to prove that they are exempt (e.g. hunting on own property).

Perhaps one of our "liberties" is the right to choose to engage in permitted activities.

Click to expand...

Except you cannot be required to surrender your constitutional rights as a condition of a government-issued permit. That applies whether we are talking about the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, Fifth, or any other Amendment. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean that you have waived your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, or effects (one of which would be your vehicle).

A police officer can't just stop anyone on the road and demand to see their license (Delaware v. Prouse). In fact, the mere attempt to avoid a checkpoint (barring any other illegal action) is not sufficient reasonable suspicion for a stop (although in practice they will find another excuse to stop you). Having a government permit cannot be used as a basis to restrict your rights. The government can't restrict your First Amendment rights as a condition of getting a permit to use a public park. In the same way, they cannot force you to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of getting a driver's license or CHP.

By your reasoning, the government could require you to do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution's protections, as long as it is a condition of a voluntary permit. That is not just morally wrong, but it is legally false.

TFred said:

It's kind of like the receipt checkers at Walmart or at the warehouse stores. Sometimes I ask them "Why are you accusing me of being a criminal?"

TFred

Click to expand...

I asked the Costco (yeah, I know - anti-gun nazis) exit door greeter checker person, "Why do you check all these receipts?" He replied, "To ensure you've gathered up all your purchases, sir." He then rolled his eyes and said, "Really to make corporate feel better about 'loss-prevention'."

grylnsmn said:

Except you cannot be required to surrender your constitutional rights as a condition of a government-issued permit. That applies whether we are talking about the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, Fifth, or any other Amendment. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean that you have waived your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, or effects (one of which would be your vehicle).

A police officer can't just stop anyone on the road and demand to see their license (Delaware v. Prouse). In fact, the mere attempt to avoid a checkpoint (barring any other illegal action) is not sufficient reasonable suspicion for a stop (although in practice they will find another excuse to stop you). Having a government permit cannot be used as a basis to restrict your rights. The government can't restrict your First Amendment rights as a condition of getting a permit to use a public park. In the same way, they cannot force you to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of getting a driver's license or CHP.

By your reasoning, the government could require you to do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution's protections, as long as it is a condition of a voluntary permit. That is not just morally wrong, but it is legally false.

Click to expand...

From a post by CHILNVLN (7/21/2011):

No, you can't be coerced into surrendering your constitutional rights, but you can consent to waive them, which can (an often is) part of the bargain for permission to do something (e.g. board an aircraft). The conditions for obtaining a permit (or license) do vary from permit to permit (driving has a more rigorous set of requirements than fishing), but in any event, the permit doesn't belong to you, it's the property of the issuing agency, which means they can require you to carry it with you when engaged in the permitted activity, show it to LEO when asked (assuming the proper criteria are met), revoke or suspend it if you don't comply with the rules, and of course, require you to pay a fee to get it. In short, these "papers" aren't secured by the 4th amendment, and a warrant isn't required to examine them. (However, a warrant may be required to conduct a search for them.) Some of the hunters on this forum could probably curl your hair with tales of conduct by Conservation Officers.

You have the freedom to decline any of these permits. How did that line go in "War Games"? "The only winning move is not to play".

2a4all said:

From a post by CHILNVLN (7/21/2011):

"DUI checkpoints have been determined to be part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigative stops. The primary purpose of a sobriety roadblock is to promote public safety by keeping intoxicated drivers off of public streets and highways. Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, DUI checkpoints are legal.

These guidelines were outlined in a landmark court case, Ingersoll vs. Palmer. Essentially, there must be a neutral or random screening process which limits the discretion of the officers in deciding who to stop. The intrusiveness on individual motorists must be limited. The detention of motorists is brief, encompassing only a few questions which allow the officer to observe objective signs of intoxication. In addition, officers will shine their flashlights into the vehicle in order to observe any alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court has ruled that this intrusion on the individual is slight in comparison to the value to society in keeping drunk drivers off the road. "
​

No, you can't be coerced into surrendering your constitutional rights, but you can consent to waive them, which can (an often is) part of the bargain for permission to do something (e.g. board an aircraft). The conditions for obtaining a permit (or license) do vary from permit to permit (driving has a more rigorous set of requirements than fishing), but in any event, the permit doesn't belong to you, it's the property of the issuing agency, which means they can require you to carry it with you when engaged in the permitted activity, show it to LEO when asked (assuming the proper criteria are met), revoke or suspend it if you don't comply with the rules, and of course, require you to pay a fee to get it. In short, these "papers" aren't secured by the 4th amendment, and a warrant isn't required to examine them. (However, a warrant may be required to conduct a search for them.) Some of the hunters on this forum could probably curl your hair with tales of conduct by Conservation Officers.

You have the freedom to decline any of these permits. How did that line go in "War Games"? "The only winning move is not to play".

Click to expand...

Sounds like the argument made for the literacy laws back in the days when we didn't want Blacks to vote!

peter nap said:

Sounds like the argument made for the literacy laws back in the days when we didn't want Blacks to vote!

Click to expand...

Next thing you know, women will have the right to vote. Then they'll all want to carry guns!

Where will it all end?......

Grapeshot said:

Next thing you know, women will have the right to vote. Then they'll all want to carry guns!

Where will it all end?......

Click to expand...

Hey Grape I know you said you were out of it for a while at MCV but were way past that stage.

Grapeshot said:

Next thing you know, women will have the right to vote. Then they'll all want to carry guns!

Where will it all end?......

Click to expand...

Wolf_shadow said:

Hey Grape I know you said you were out of it for a while at MCV but we're way past that stage.

Click to expand...

A lot can happen in the blink of an eye - just ask Mr. Van Winkle.

Skeptic said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"


Seems pretty clear. Indiscriminately stopping everyone without probable cause seems to be entirely in keeping with the meaning of the word unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Very well put!

Now, time for a little exercise CHILINVLN.

Gun bans have been determined to be part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigations. The primary purpose of a gun ban is to promote public safety by keeping armed citizens off of public streets and highways. Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, gun bans are legal.

Click to expand...

Driving is legal, as is gun ownership. Assuming no other crimes are being committed alongside either, in your sentences the two terms are interchangeable on principle. I'd just like to see if you still agree with such a statement. To me and many others here, checkpoints are yet another encroachment on our liberties and something that should be stopped.

Moran 'Meet & Greet' ??

Is Jimbo scheduled to hold any Town Hall Meetings with constituents during August recess?

He's not a good listener, but just asking.

Kevin108 said:

Very well put!

Now, time for a little exercise CHILINVLN.



Driving is legal, as is gun ownership. Assuming no other crimes are being committed alongside either, in your sentences the two terms are interchangeable on principle. I'd just like to see if you still agree with such a statement. To me and many others here, checkpoints are yet another encroachment on our liberties and something that should be stopped.

Click to expand...

I don't like checkpoints either.

As their purpose is to identify and remove from the highway those who drive after they have been drinking excessively, it could be argued that they are necessary because the current penalties for such an act are too weak to influence a different behavior. So let's make DUI a felony on the 1st offense, with mandatory jail time and see if the incidences of that act decrease. If so, then elimminate the checkpoint system.

2a4all said:

SNIP So let's make DUI a felony on the 1st offense, with mandatory jail time and see if the incidences of that act decrease. If so, then elimminate the checkpoint system.

Click to expand...

Never work. Government would be seriously affected: we'd lose too many prosecutors, legislators, and cops. Prolly a few judges, too.

2a4all said:

I don't like checkpoints either.

As their purpose is to identify and remove from the highway those who drive after they have been drinking excessively, it could be argued that they are necessary because the current penalties for such an act are too weak to influence a different behavior. So let's make DUI a felony on the 1st offense, with mandatory jail time and see if the incidences of that act decrease. If so, then elimminate the checkpoint system.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

Never work. Government would be seriously affected: we'd lose too many prosecutors, legislators, and cops. Prolly a few judges, too.

Click to expand...

There have been a (very) few of these tossed from their office for not taking DUI seriously enough. So I propose that we make it a civil matter: In addition to any litigation brought by the family of a victim of vehicular manslaughter, they will also enjoy a grant of immunity for any misfortune that befalls anyone found culpable.