Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: GOP takeover in Senate having profound effects

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

    GOP takeover in Senate having profound effects

    I guess the Republicans are the Occupiers in the Virginia Senate given the attitude of certain Democrats. Cold Turkey withdrawal can be brutal, I suppose.

    GOP takeover in Senate having profound effects
    The GOP takeover of the Virginia Senate is already having an impact in the General Assembly, and the repercussions appear on the verge of changing the state in ways that extend well beyond the Capitol.

    Committees now controlled by Republicans advanced a measure last week to end the one-gun-a-month limit on handgun purchases and backed a requirement that a woman get an ultrasound before having an abortion. Both bills are expected to pass the Republican-dominated House of Delegates and go to Gov. Bob McDonnell.

    GOP legislation that would further restrict the rules governing identification that voters must present at the polls is poised to pass the full Senate.

    In the previous four years, split party control in the General Assembly — Democrats holding the Senate and Republicans holding the House — provided each party with a check to the extremes within its ranks.

    But this year, the one-party rule — following a court-challenged vote by Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling to organize the Senate for Republicans — has opened the door to potentially significant policy shifts that are deeply troubling to many Democrats.

    "We're starting to see Virginia taken into the category of states doing very ill-advised things around guns and reproductive rights," said Sen. David W. Marsden, D-Fairfax.

    "I just hope we don't hit laughingstock status."

    ...

    Gun-rights advocates, gratified by their success when the Senate Courts of Justice Committee backed a bill to repeal the one-gun-a-month law, met resistance on a bill to exempt shotguns and rifles from Virginia's background check system. They are less optimistic they will find success with bills that would allow guns to be carried on college campuses.

    Republican-controlled Senate committees have green-lighted several Democratic measures. For example, the courts committee last week supported a bill that would prohibit anyone who is the subject of an emergency protective order from carrying a weapon in the home of the alleged victim.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    I guess the Republicans are the Occupiers in the Virginia Senate given the attitude of certain Democrats. Cold Turkey withdrawal can be brutal, I suppose.

    GOP takeover in Senate having profound effects
    Can't you NOVAites muzzle your politicians? It's worse than listening to The Osmond's over and over and over.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    "We're starting to see Virginia taken into the category of states doing very ill-advised things around guns and reproductive rights," said Sen. David W. Marsden, D-Fairfax.
    Doesn't one of the anti-gun organizations rank the states according to their agenda? Has anyone compared a corresponding ranking of states by crime statistics? I bet the two lists correlate fairly well.

    I guess lowering the crime rates must be "ill-advised".... to a criminal!

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Can't you NOVAites muzzle your politicians? It's worse than listening to The Osmond's over and over and over.
    Why do gun rights get lumped with "reproductive" rights?

    Consider what Janet Howell did to Vogel's ultrasound bill:

    Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men
    Democrat Janet Howell of Fairfax County proposed requiring men to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before getting prescriptions for erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra.

    “This is a matter of basic fairness,” Howell said.

    Howell said she left last week’s committee meeting feeling “quite distressed and angry” about the bill.

    “It’s requiring them to have unnecessary medical procedures, it’s adding to the cost and it’s opening them up for emotional blackmail,” she said on the Senate floor today. “And I was upset because it’s disrespectful of doctors. It’s forcing them to perform procedures they don’t think is necessary.”

    She said she was watching television in her hotel room that evening and saw an ad for an erectile dysfunction drug that included a recitation of “all the serious things that could happen to a man who was going to take this medication.”

    “So, I said, it’s only fair, that if we’re going to subject women to unnecessary procedures, and we’re going to subject doctors to having to do things that they don’t think is medically advisory, well, Mr. President, I think we should just have a little gender equity here,” Howell said, explaining her amendment.
    Let's see: Background checks for guns. Ultrasounds for abortions.

    Howell is quite willing to burden gun owners and Virginians seeking guns.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Another NOVA "NO"-IT-ALL ???

    We're starting to see Virginia taken into the category of states doing very ill-advised things around guns and reproductive rights," said Sen. David W. Marsden, D-Fairfax.



    Where does NOVA find these "people"? ( ;>) Thought I should be nice)

    Just what "ill-advised things around guns" is Dandy Dave talking about???

    Typical Lib politician, spew and imply, but don't be specfic. Obviously trained by Dirty Dick. Does Dave play Guitar to Dick's Banjo?

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    We're starting to see Virginia taken into the category of states doing very ill-advised things around guns and reproductive rights," said Sen. David W. Marsden, D-Fairfax.



    Where does NOVA find these "people"? ( ;>) Thought I should be nice)

    Just what "ill-advised things around guns" is Dandy Dave talking about???

    Typical Lib politician, spew and imply, but don't be specfic. Obviously trained by Dirty Dick. Does Dave play Guitar to Dick's Banjo?
    Give em a new suit before taking them to Mary Land!


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Give em a new suit before taking them to Mary Land!

    Outstanding idea!!!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    Outstanding idea!!!!!
    The problem is finding enough tar, not to mention the feathers.

    Shoot, Moran all by himself would need a whole (roofer's) kettle, and you'd need to dip Saslaw twice just to be sure.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    'Scuse me for interrupting the pillow fight, but did anyone else read
    Republican-controlled Senate committees have green-lighted several Democratic measures. For example, the courts committee last week supported a bill that would prohibit anyone who is the subject of an emergency protective order from carrying a weapon in the home of the alleged victim.
    I thought the hated Laughtenburg Amendment took away gun rights, and that the protective order was to keep the subject of the order away from [usually] the house of the "alleged victim" among other places the "alleged victim" might be. So someone in the D column is proposing a law to make it illegal to do something that is against several laws already?

    Just how many times do these children think one must be told "No!" before it becomes something we really mean? Oops! Just answered my own question, didn't I?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    I am all for the lessening of gun control laws as I think every singe one of them is an affront to the 2nd amendment.... but I can't agree on limiting a woman's liberties. Their body, their choice. Who am I to judge them for wanting / getting and abortion. Only God can judge them.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt_Kowalski View Post
    I am all for the lessening of gun control laws as I think every singe one of them is an affront to the 2nd amendment.... but I can't agree on limiting a woman's liberties. Their body, their choice. Who am I to judge them for wanting / getting and abortion. Only God can judge them.
    Well said.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Why do gun rights get lumped with "reproductive" rights?

    Consider what Janet Howell did to Vogel's ultrasound bill:

    Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men


    Let's see: Background checks for guns. Ultrasounds for abortions.

    Howell is quite willing to burden gun owners and Virginians seeking guns.
    What about the other part about rectal exams for men?
    So now gun owners will need a borescope exam to buy a gun?
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  13. #13
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt_Kowalski View Post
    I am all for the lessening of gun control laws as I think every singe one of them is an affront to the 2nd amendment.... but I can't agree on limiting a woman's liberties. Their body, their choice. Who am I to judge them for wanting / getting and abortion. Only God can judge them.

    Not to hijack the thread but how is getting an ultra sound limiting womans liberties? Remember with out the right to life all other rights are meaningless, and the baby (not blob of cells) deserves the same right to life that you have!
    Inconveniencing a "liberty" is well worth protecting a RIGHT! The ultrasound gives them more information to make a better decision. Statistics I have seen show that once a woman sees the ultrasound and understands the lie that planned parenthood told them (its just a blob of cells) 80% choose life!!!!

    It is pretty hard to disprove your own eyes when you see your childs fingers, eyelids and beating heart! Apparantly 20% don't care.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    It is pretty hard to disprove your own eyes when you see your childs fingers, eyelids and beating heart! Apparantly 20% don't care.
    Emotional manipulation. Is the fetus capable of surviving outside its mother? Its appearance is irrelevant.

    Perhaps some women are aware of these facts, and choose to make their decision based on reason rather than emotion? Perhaps they intentionally avoid looking at the issue emotionally (ultrasound = baby pictures) to enable rationality. Who are you to force them to do otherwise?

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Is the fetus capable of surviving outside its mother?
    FLAG! There are dozens if not hundreds of situations in real life where people require sustenance and other forms of assistance from other people in order to survive. Can a 1 year old baby survive without the constant care of another person? No! So should we allow parents to "eliminate them" as well?

    The difference between inside and outside the womb is what is truly irrelevant.

    This topic should not be discussed on this forum. But don't expect to be able to drop bombs like that and go unchallenged.

    TFred

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I ain't getting in this one other than to say that Abortion is wrong but laws depriving a woman of the right to make a wrong choice ...are worse.

    You can't legislate morality!

  17. #17
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt_Kowalski View Post
    I am all for the lessening of gun control laws as I think every singe one of them is an affront to the 2nd amendment.... but I can't agree on limiting a woman's liberties. Their body, their choice. Who am I to judge them for wanting / getting and abortion. Only God can judge them.
    No one is talking about limiting a woman's "liberties" or limiting what they do with their body.

    We are talking about terminating human life.

    You'd be fine with me putting a gun to my neighbor's head and pulling the trigger, simply because I wanted to, all in the name of "liberty?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Not to hijack the thread but how is getting an ultra sound limiting womans liberties? Remember with out the right to life all other rights are meaningless, and the baby (not blob of cells) deserves the same right to life that you have!
    Inconveniencing a "liberty" is well worth protecting a RIGHT! The ultrasound gives them more information to make a better decision. Statistics I have seen show that once a woman sees the ultrasound and understands the lie that planned parenthood told them (its just a blob of cells) 80% choose life!!!!

    It is pretty hard to disprove your own eyes when you see your childs fingers, eyelids and beating heart! Apparantly 20% don't care.
    Can't dispute either your statistics nor what Planned Parenthood tells these folks.

    But what I do stongly object to is the State forcing someone to do this.

    If the State is trying to use "scare tactics" to convince women to forgo abortions, why aren't we who carry for self defense being forced to watch video (or look at photos) of people dying of gunshots? I've met several folks who (say) they carry for SD, but then have stated they're not real comfortable with the prospect of having to kill someone to protect their own life. If there were a forced viewing of these scenarios, wouldn't that make (some of) these people forgo carrying for SD?

    Why isn't it a requirement that all pregnant women (redundant, who else gets pregnant?) view an ultrasound of their baby? Wouldn't this promote a desire to avoid risky behaviors (drinking, smoking, etc.) that could endanger its development? If they do view, and don't avoid, shouldn't this be a crime of some sort?

    Everyone that we might kill in an act of self defense was a viable fetus at some point in their life.

    Granted, attackers can/have done you some grevious harm (thus the justification) whereas a fetus probably hasn't.
    Last edited by 2a4all; 01-31-2012 at 04:47 PM.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  19. #19
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    Can't dispute either your statistics nor what Planned Parenthood tells these folks.

    But what I do stongly object to is the State forcing someone to do this.

    If the State is trying to use "scare tactics" to convince women to forgo abortions, why aren't we who carry for self defense being forced to watch video (or look at photos) of people dying of gunshots? I've met several folks who (say) they carry for SD, but then have stated they're not real comfortable with the prospect of having to kill someone to protect their own life. If there were a forced viewing of these scenarios, wouldn't that make (some of) these people forgo carrying for SD?

    Why isn't it a requirement that all pregnant women (redundant, who else gets pregnant?) view an ultrasound of their baby? Wouldn't this promote a desire to avoid risky behaviors (drinking, smoking, etc.) that could endanger its development? If they do view, and don't avoid, shouldn't this be a crime of some sort?

    Everyone that we might kill in an act of self defense was a viable fetus at some point in their life.

    Granted, attackers can/have done you some grevious harm (thus the justification) whereas a fetus probably hasn't.
    Well said.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Reproductive Rights

    I have one thing to say about that: "Natural selection."

    Everyone has the right not to reproduce, but having done so, and then killing the offspring is infanticide. Some societies have done so (e.g., China) for a really long time, and as others have said, who am I to decide. But any organism that kills its own offspring doesn't deserve to be represented in the subsequent generation's gene pool.

    The one thing I really do object to is the idea that the United States has any say in what Virginia does with respect to the morals, health and welfare of her citizens, much less the exercise of the police power.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    FLAG! There are dozens if not hundreds of situations in real life where people require sustenance and other forms of assistance from other people in order to survive. Can a 1 year old baby survive without the constant care of another person? No! So should we allow parents to "eliminate them" as well?

    The difference between inside and outside the womb is what is truly irrelevant.

    This topic should not be discussed on this forum. But don't expect to be able to drop bombs like that and go unchallenged.

    TFred
    It's not a question of whether a person is dependent on a person for sustenance. Since rights cannot overlap, the question is, when does a mother's pre-existing right to self-ownership no longer preclude the fetus having an absolute right to life? The obvious answer is, when its life is no longer dependent on her body, and therefore her right to self-ownership. If nature allows or technology exists to keep a fetus alive outside its mother at a given point, then a mother has a right to eject the fetus, but not to actively kill it afterwards.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I ain't getting in this one other than to say that Abortion is wrong but laws depriving a woman of the right to make a wrong choice ...are worse.

    You can't legislate morality!
    Yeah, you can't make it any simpler than this. +∞

  23. #23
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ChinChin View Post
    lol, too late. Anyway, this thread was doomed from the very first post.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    64

    Thumbs down Janet Howell

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Can't you NOVAites muzzle your politicians? It's worse than listening to The Osmond's over and over and over.
    Last election Janet spent 1000 times more that the salary she makes as a VA senator to get elected. If I could raise that kind of money (and didn't have to hold down a real job) I'd run...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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