Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[printcraft]

Got it, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

However I would like to see more than just that. What actually does it mean? Other than board statements why exactly is it such a bad thing and I'm not discounting the meaning and importance of this to you. I guess what I am saying is what exactly are the details and yes I have received a number of them so far.


But is there anything else?

The ENTIRE basis of the idea of control was evil, it doesn't magically go away if you sugar coat it for today.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But it always seems the right is always so Pro-Gun rights?

Of course. That is a large part of the price that the RINOs have to pay to get the rest of us to vote for them.

Let me ask you this: Would you support the requirement for a license contingent on passing a background check and paying fees for the privilege of being able to speak freely, assemble, or go to church?

How about a ban on speech you happen not to like? Speech of yours that others might not like?

 

[Dddrees]

Of course. That is a large part of the price that the RINOs have to pay to get the rest of us to vote for them.

Let me ask you this: Would you support the requirement for a license contingent on passing a background check and paying fees for the privilege of being able to speak freely, assemble, or go to church?

How about a ban on speech you happen not to like? Speech of yours that others might not like?

If it was determined that background checks could be justified or somehow deemed necessary with regards to getting a drivers license I wouldn't have any problem with that. That kind of thing doesn't worry me. We keep having these car killers anyway so we may very well be talking this real soon. But yeah, that really doesn't concern me.

When you try to take different things although they are all rights they are still diferent you lose me. Not that I don't fail to see what you are trying to do, or I don't get they are all rights, but the fact remains I think there are differences. I believe we can make reasonable distinctions. That never goes over well with a group like this but here again I see a difference and this would be a very difficult if impossible bridge for us to gap. I just do and in fact the government agrees with me here, so there you have it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Got it, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

However I would like to see more than just that. What actually does it mean? Other than board statements why exactly is it such a bad thing and I'm not discounting the meaning and importance of this to you. I guess what I am saying is what exactly are the details and yes I have received a number of them so far.


But is there anything else?

Again, Google is your friend (as long as you don't work for them and disagree with them).

I just kind of skimmed this and didn't check their sources but here's some history for you.

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/comm...ings/The Racist Origins of US Gun Control.pdf

 

[IndyDave1776]

If it was determined that background checks could be justified or somehow deemed necessary with regards to getting a drivers license I wouldn't have any problem with that. That kind of thing doesn't worry me. We keep having these car killers anyway so we may very well be talking this real soon. But yeah, that really doesn't concern me.

When you try to take different things although they are all rights they are still diferent you lose me. Not that I don't fail to see what you are trying to do, or I don't get they are all rights, but the fact remains I think there are differences. I believe we can make reasonable distinctions. That never goes over well with a group like this but here again I see a difference and this would be a very difficult if impossible bridge for us to gap. I just do and in fact the government agrees with me here, so there you have it.

Your 'reasonable distinctions' are the line that divides rights from conditional and revocable privileges. Unless you are willing to give up the concept of having rights you would be well advised to rethink your position.

 

[Dddrees]

Your 'reasonable distinctions' are the line that divides rights from conditional and revocable privileges. Unless you are willing to give up the concept of having rights you would be well advised to rethink your position.

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If it was determined that background checks could be justified or somehow deemed necessary with regards to getting a drivers license I wouldn't have any problem with that. That kind of thing doesn't worry me. We keep having these car killers anyway so we may very well be talking this real soon. But yeah, that really doesn't concern me.

When you try to take different things although they are all rights they are still diferent you lose me. Not that I don't fail to see what you are trying to do, or I don't get they are all rights, but the fact remains I think there are differences. I believe we can make reasonable distinctions. That never goes over well with a group like this but here again I see a difference and this would be a very difficult if impossible bridge for us to gap. I just do and in fact the government agrees with me here, so there you have it.

With all due respect, you either are ignorant of how the Constitution is supposed to work, you believe in the fallacious concept of a "living constitution", or you just don't care. Words mean things. And they should mean what the writers meant for them to mean the day they wrote them. If you want to make owning a gun on par with getting a drivers license, then you have to change the clear meaning of the 2A.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

You're not allowed to shoot a gun wrecklessly in a theater.

The difference you're looking for is not that I'm not allowed to talk in a movie theater or that I'm not allowed to possess a gun in a movie theater, it's what dangerous or wreckless things I do.

 

[Dddrees]

Again, Google is your friend (as long as you don't work for them and disagree with them).

I just kind of skimmed this and didn't check their sources but here's some history for you.

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/comm...ings/The Racist Origins of US Gun Control.pdf

Thanks, I have to leave now but I'll have to get back to it later.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

That is analogous to not being allowed to shoot people for the sheer hell of it, not having your rights preemptively restricted.

 

[Dddrees]

You're not allowed to shoot a gun wrecklessly in a theater.

Exactly

 

[IndyDave1776]

Exactly

Yes, but that doesn't square with your position. We are talking about using something made available through a right to maliciously harm others. You are talking about eliminating the right as such, demoting it to a conditional privilege.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly

See update. I don't think you'll still be in agreement with your current mindset.

 

[jamil]

Whoa, this is a new one on me.

How in the Hell is Gun Control Racist?

Nearly every form of gun control disproportionately affects the abilities of inner city residents from owning firearms.

 

[jamil]

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

That's not completely true. The point in that commentary on the court ruling was not to a proscription for which words you could not say in a theater. It was to say that speech which causes harm isn't protected by the 1st amendment. So after you've yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, and you caused a stampede and people were killed. When the families sue your ass, you can't claim that your speech was protected by the 1st amendment.

Of course I suppose some idiotic jurisdictions decided they should ban the specific yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater. But that's not a constitutional issue.

So it is with guns. You can't use your gun for harming people and then say you are protected by the 2A. That's a reasonable restriction to rights.

 

[Leadeye]

New York's Sullivan Act in 1911 was penned by one of the most corrupt and criminal politicians of the time. It was dressed up as gun control but was aimed at new minorities in NYC at the time, primarily Italians. Tammany Hall controlled who got the permits, freely discriminating against anyone for any reason, ethnicity, skin color, or political affiliation.

 

[BugI02]

New York's Sullivan Act in 1911 was penned by one of the most corrupt and criminal politicians of the time. It was dressed up as gun control but was aimed at new minorities in NYC at the time, primarily Italians. Tammany Hall controlled who got the permits, freely discriminating against anyone for any reason, ethnicity, skin color, or political affiliation.

The only thing that has changed in 106 years is the name of the hall and the who's who on the organizational chart.

 

[BugI02]

Your 'reasonable distinctions' are the line that divides rights from conditional and revocable privileges. Unless you are willing to give up the concept of having rights you would be well advised to rethink your position.

Hear, hear! One of the founding fathers dealt with the idea of men who would accept whatever rights the government decided to allow them, rather than the natural rights God gave all men

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

 

[Expat]

https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin

Terry is a moron and a liar.

 

[Leadeye]

He's a clinton dog robber.

When you sit in the big chair you have a responsibility to the people of your state. Marching nazis and the klan aren't new items, leadership at his level bears part of the responsibility of this sad event.