Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm glad you realize your 2nd amendment rights not withstanding, the gov't still can regulate what you can carry, where you can carry, and how you can use your weapon. The 2nd only says they just can't arbitrarily say no one can have any type of firearm for any reason. I agree with that philosophy and I don't think I know anyone who would ban all guns for all people.

No, that is not what the Second Amendment says.

The Second Amendment identifies the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing this right.

Do you know what “infringe” means? It's related the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edge of a thing or in more modern usage, to a form of decoration applied to that edge. In saying that the right shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is saying that government may not even touch the barest edge of that right.

 

[alang1216]

Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.

Speech is not an unalienable right. It is in the Constitution to prevent our government from making laws limiting speech.
In my world I can prevent anyone I want from speaking to me.

Guns are not an unalienable right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is

If speech is not an unalienable right how can you say the right of the people to keep and bear arms is? I sense you're just wishing, not thinking.

Where did I say speech wasn't a right?

We have a right to free speech and to bear arms. Both are in the Constitution but neither are 'unalienable', only life, liberty, and the pursuit. ALL rights have limits.

 

[alang1216]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

 

[Blues Man]

Speech is not an unalienable right. It is in the Constitution to prevent our government from making laws limiting speech.
In my world I can prevent anyone I want from speaking to me.

Guns are not an unalienable right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is

If speech is not an unalienable right how can you say the right of the people to keep and bear arms is? I sense you're just wishing, not thinking.

Where did I say speech wasn't a right?

We have a right to free speech and to bear arms. Both are in the Constitution but neither are 'unalienable', only life, liberty, and the pursuit. ALL rights have limits.

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.

Note that laws regarding libel, slander, fraud, and other such abuses of free speech only come into play when one uses one right to violate the rights of others.

There is no comparable principle to justify the way that the Second Amendment is being attacked. One person being in possession of a weapon does not, in any way, violate anyone else's rights. Now, if someone abuses that weapon, in a way that unjustifiably harms or threatens another, then that's another matter, but such conduct is already rightfully illegal.

In my county you are not allowed to carry a weapon unless you have a permit. To get a permit you have to have the proper training to know how and when to use it. Seems like a reasonable ask to me. Likewise criminals are not allowed to possess guns. Also reasonable. When I walk the dog I don't want to be thinking is that person standing on the corner an ex-con or a loon with a gun.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.

Note that laws regarding libel, slander, fraud, and other such abuses of free speech only come into play when one uses one right to violate the rights of others.

There is no comparable principle to justify the way that the Second Amendment is being attacked. One person being in possession of a weapon does not, in any way, violate anyone else's rights. Now, if someone abuses that weapon, in a way that unjustifiably harms or threatens another, then that's another matter, but such conduct is already rightfully illegal.

In my county you are not allowed to carry a weapon unless you have a permit. To get a permit you have to have the proper training to know how and when to use it. Seems like a reasonable ask to me. Likewise criminals are not allowed to possess guns. Also reasonable. When I walk the dog I don't want to be thinking is that person standing on the corner an ex-con or a loon with a gun.

So why are you telling people in other countries what their rights should be?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Virginia National Guard responds:

"We have received multiple questions regarding proposed legislation for the 2020 General Assembly session and the authority of the Governor of Virginia to employ the Virginia National Guard in a law enforcement role," the Virginia National Guard tweeted on behalf of Adjutant General of Virginia Major General Timothy P. Williams.

"We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights," the tweet continued. "We will not speculate about the possible use of the Virginia National Guard. We have not received any requests from the Governor, or anyone on his staff, about serving in a law enforcement role related to any proposed legislation."

Virginia state reresentative suggests National Guard be called to force enforcement of new gun legislation

 

[Blues Man]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

You'll notice that there is not a set number of unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

 

[alang1216]

So why are you telling people in other countries what their rights should be?

I assume you mean other counties. If you go back to my original reply you'll see I don't. They can do what they want so long as they don't impact my county.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

Where is your right to be happy in the Constitution?

You seem to think the Declaration of independence and the constitution are the same thing



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

You'll notice that there is not a set number of unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're not welcome to rewrite that document either.

 

[Blues Man]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

You'll notice that there is not a set number of unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're not welcome to rewrite that document either.

The Declaration of independence has nothing to do with the constitution or the laws of the USA

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The comments are the most interesting part. I believe Northam and friends truly do not realize what they will awaken.

Dems deliver how-to lesson in 'quid pro quo' ... on guns - WND

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty. I think a compromise is very possible, here's what I'd propose:

1. The sanctuary counties can enact whatever rules they want, inside the borders of that county.
   
2. The sanctuary counties will NOT interfere with or undermine other Virginia counties' gun control measures.

In practice the sanctuary counties can have open carry, no registration, bump stocks, etc., within their counties even if they violate state rules. They'd have to comply with state gun sales regulations for non-county citizens. Any county gun owner must comply with all state and local county regulations when they take their firearms out of their sanctuary counties. Any county gun owner who moves from their sanctuary counties to another VA county must bring their firearms into compliance with their new county rule.

In summary, you can do what you want in your county so long as you do what I want in my county.

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

 

[alang1216]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

Where is your right to be happy in the Constitution?

You seem to think the Declaration of independence and the constitution are the same thing



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're right of course but posters have been applying 'inalienable rights' to the 2nd.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

You'll notice that there is not a set number of unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're not welcome to rewrite that document either.

ok shall not be infringed

 

[alang1216]

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

 

[alang1216]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.