Norfolk Virginian-Pilot - Citizen Commentary

USNA69 · Feb 19, 2012

In Sunday's Pilot: http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/Oliv...inianPilot/2012/02/19&pageno=24&view=document

Synopsis: I know guns; I have guns; but, why would you need that many guns?

I am drafting my response LTE right now.

peter nap · Feb 19, 2012

USNA69 said:
In Sunday's Pilot: http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/Oliv...inianPilot/2012/02/19&pageno=24&view=document

Synopsis: I know guns; I have guns; but, why would you need that many guns?

I am drafting my response LTE right now.

I'll bet they belong to the NRA too!

USNA69 · Feb 19, 2012

LTE drafted and submitted

Editor:
Re: “Something’s going wrong in Virginia” commentary Feb. 19: Mr. Stiles is perplexed about the impending repeal of the “one handgun a month” law. He cannot imagine why anyone would need that many guns.

No, Mr. Stiles, at long last, something is going right in Virginia.

This issue is not about how many handguns a citizen “needs”. It is not about guns at all. It is about the government’s ability to place a quantitative limitation on a right guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the government can place such a numerical limit on handguns, then why could it not place a similar limit on the number of times you are permitted to vote or the number of times you are permitted to invoke your 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment right against self incrimination or unreasonable search and seizure? A “right” which is limited by government is not a “right” at all; it is “permission” … easily granted and just as easily revoked.

If Mr. Stiles is really concerned about the number of deaths in Virginia, I would suggest that he support a government limit on the number of miles which each citizen is permitted to drive each month. That should be easy, as the operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the Commonwealth and not a constitutional right. Drunk driving, road rage, texting, et. al. account for far more Virginia deaths each year than do hand guns.

P.S. The “urban cowboy” will continue stick his gun in your face, regardless of any law. Criminals don’t care about the law; only law-abiding citizens do.

230therapy · Feb 19, 2012

Very nice LTE USNA69!

Repeater · Feb 19, 2012

Something's going wrong in Virginia

Let's all read the commentary here:

Something's going wrong in Virginia

The legislature is set to repeal the one-handgun-a-month limit. I don't understand this at all.

Outside of collectors, do you know anyone who needs more than 12 handguns a year? Outside of child-haters, do you know anyone who needs more than 12 abortions a year? Isn't a person who thinks she needs so many handguns someone to be avoided rather than pandered to? Isn't a person who thinks she needs so many abortions someone to be avoided rather than pandered to?

My father eventually broke with the NRA as being too radical on gun rights. That's too funny. What would your father think of the GOA? This legislative proposal continues the insanity that caused my Marine father to say "enough." Leave no Freedom behind.

I live in a community at the edge of some lawless folks. Many of them are armed. I'll grant them their one gun a month and glance around nervously under the neon of a gas station canopy as I fill my car's tank. But why do they need more handguns than that? What possible societal good do more weapons provide? Fundamental right aren't determined by "need" -- we who are free choose of our own free will how to live our lives.

In the debate on this bill to repeal the limit, Sen. Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax, observed that anyone buying one handgun a month for the past 20 years, the maximum allowed during the time the law has been in effect, would have 240 handguns today.

"If you need more than 240 handguns, something is wrong with you," Saslaw said. "Something has gone terribly wrong in your life."

With the progress of this legislation, something is going terribly wrong in Virginia.

Anyone who needs to quote approvingly of Dick Saslaw has something going terribly wrong in his head. Get help.

2a4all · Feb 19, 2012

230therapy said:
Very nice LTE USNA69!

I concur!

BTW, therapy, how should one interpret your tag line about whether the founders were armed in John Adams' tavern? Are we to think that they were sitting around unarmed, but unsure of the reason, or that they were always armed regardless of where they might go, and when they saw the "No Guns Allowed" sign on the tavern door, removed it and handed it to the proprieter as they seated themselves and ordered up dinner and, as USAN69 would say, "Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses."?

230therapy · Feb 22, 2012

2a4all said:
BTW, therapy, how should one interpret your tag line about whether the founders were armed in John Adams' tavern? Are we to think that they were sitting around unarmed, but unsure of the reason, or that they were always armed regardless of where they might go, and when they saw the "No Guns Allowed" sign on the tavern door, removed it and handed it to the proprieter as they seated themselves and ordered up dinner and, as USAN69 would say, "Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses."?

Men from that era understood the immorality of disarming people. The proprietor knew that almost everyone carried weapons out of necessity and that disarming them invited violence against them. We say "His property, his rules!" but is that really the right argument? I say it is not. Are property rights more important than life itself? I think not.

Grapeshot · Feb 22, 2012

230therapy said:
Men from that era understood the immorality of disarming people. The proprietor knew that almost everyone carried weapons out of necessity and that disarming them invited violence against them. We say "His property, his rules!" but is that really the right argument? I say it is not. Are property rights more important than life itself? I think not.

Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.

papa bear · Feb 22, 2012

Grapeshot said:
Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what he said

peter nap · Feb 23, 2012

Grapeshot said:
Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.

As one of the most outspoken Private Property Rights people here....

Grapeshot has convinced me that there is a tremendous difference between a piece of property with a sign that says "Trespassers will be tied up and told they have a purdy mouth" and one that says "Come in, spend your money but leave your gun in the car".:uhoh:

wylde007 · Feb 23, 2012

Grapeshot said:
I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

Discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin is ILLEGAL (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment) but discrimination based on exercise of the 2nd Amendment is not.

The Constitution is not a Chinese buffet.

I am also appalled that companies (private or public) can make and enforce POLICIES which demand you to sacrifice or suspend your rights as a condition of employment. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate for employment based on race, color, creed, sex or national origin... but not illegal to disallow exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

This country (and a lot of the people in it) is certifiable.

Grapeshot · Feb 23, 2012

Grapeshot said:
Have long held that position myself Mr. 230.

I posit that if you are open to the public that you should not be able to restrict or deny any of the enumerated rights - on/in your private, non-public invited property yes. Definitely not the local mall, movie theater or car wash.

The strict adherents to state's rights like to chew on me for that, but they haven't dented my hide yet.

wylde007 said:
Discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin is ILLEGAL (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment) but discrimination based on exercise of the 2nd Amendment is not.

The Constitution is not a Chinese buffet.

I am also appalled that companies (private or public) can make and enforce POLICIES which demand you to sacrifice or suspend your rights as a condition of employment. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate for employment based on race, color, creed, sex or national origin... but not illegal to disallow exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

This country (and a lot of the people in it) is certifiable.

No the Constitution is not a Chinese buffet, but it is subject to a seasonably adjusted menu - the original BoR was 10 such points, now how many? Add to that federal laws which have include handicapped and age considerations and the menu expands further.

Shopping Centers and the like that wish to limit/restrict the RKBA should close their doors to the general public and only allow their family and invited friends to shop there - not to be confused with "membership clubs" that must still abide by the law of the land.

wylde007 · Feb 23, 2012

Grapeshot said:
the original BoR was 10 such points, now how many?

Bill of Rights?

Still just ten. The only ten we need.

Add to that federal laws which have include handicapped and age considerations and the menu expands further.

Aside from general considerations of "personhood" being inherent of enjoyment of such rights, most federal laws are in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The "commerce clause" has been abused an unimaginable number of times to do an end-around on the rule of law.

Shopping Centers and the like that wish to limit/restrict the RKBA should close their doors to the general public and only allow their family and invited friends to shop there - not to be confused with "membership clubs" that must still abide by the law of the land.

Agreed.

Repeater · Feb 23, 2012

wylde007 said:
Bill of Rights?

Still just ten. The only ten we need.Aside from general considerations of "personhood" being inherent of enjoyment of such rights, most federal laws are in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The "commerce clause" has been abused an unimaginable number of times to do an end-around on the rule of law.Agreed.

Below is what I prefer:

Congress shall make no law ...

Please stop.

Thank you.

riverrat10k · Feb 24, 2012

++++++ to Grape and Repeater.

Dreamer · Feb 25, 2012

wylde007 said:
Bill of Rights?

Still just ten. The only ten we need.

There are a lot of female and African-American members of this forum that would probably VIGOROUSLY disagree with your statement.

As would I.

I think the 13th, 15th, 19th, 22nd, 24th and 26th Amendments are pretty good things...

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot - Citizen Commentary

USNA69

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

USNA69

Regular Member

230therapy

Regular Member

Repeater

Regular Member

2a4all

Regular Member

230therapy

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

papa bear

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

wylde007

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

wylde007

Regular Member

Repeater

Regular Member

riverrat10k

Regular Member

Dreamer

Regular Member