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.
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."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 guess lowering the crime rates must be "ill-advised".... to a criminal!
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.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.
Howell is quite willing to burden gun owners and Virginians seeking guns.
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?
'Scuse me for interrupting the pillow fight, but did anyone else read
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?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.
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?
"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"
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
"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."
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)
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.
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed."
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?
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.
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!
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?"
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 03:47 PM.
A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.
Member VCDL, NRA
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.
The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln