Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.

Hmm, playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't the list of inalienable rights typically start with "life, liberty"? Your plan would seem self-defeating, unless of course it's based on an alternate definition of "eliminate"

Eliminate from our society.
However you want to define it.

So death, internment, or forcible ejection? If so, wouldn't that make whomever imposed such a plan also become a victim of it's enforcement? After all, since life, liberty and ownership of property are inalienable rights, people who would subject others to death, internment or forcible ejection from property on a categorical basis would, by definition, also be "people who don't believe in inalienable rights." Therein lies the ethical dilemma that all great political philosophers and framers of great democracies have wrestled with since Ancient Greece to today.
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.


So you think you have the right to life, liberty, and property, but not the right to protect your life, liberty, and property?
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.
So you think you have the right to life, liberty, and property, but not the right to protect your life, liberty, and property?
Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.
 
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.

That would dissolve the state, and still infringe upon non-sanctuary counties. Better to dissolve the Democrats.
The US seems to work with a Federal system containing semi-autonomous States. Not great but we seem to be OK with pot so far.

Indeed, not counties.
 
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.

it is not OK for any county to violate the Constitution of the United States.

What if your county wanted to suspend any other amendments?

You'd be OK with that?
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.
So you think you have the right to life, liberty, and property, but not the right to protect your life, liberty, and property?
Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

Childish question. The Russians will not invade.

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

That there are unconstitutional laws neither negates nor repeals the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law" means precisely that.
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.

:auiqs.jpg:
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.
And we have laws against crime and murder.

It is illegal in almost all public spaces to fire a weapon except for a single reason, the defense of yourself or another.

My concealed carry permit allows me to do one thing and one thing only. carry a weapon in such a manner that it cannot be detected by sight. It does not give me the right to draw that weapon or to fire that weapon.

If I fire my weapon in self defense there is no presumption of innocence if I kill a person. I have to legally justify that use of my weapon to the satisfaction of the court and/ or a jury.
 
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.

it is not OK for any county to violate the Constitution of the United States.

What if your county wanted to suspend any other amendments?

You'd be OK with that?
I was not talking about the Constitution, only VA law. If the county violated the 2nd, it would be between the county and the Feds. No reason for VA to be involved.
 
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.

That would dissolve the state, and still infringe upon non-sanctuary counties. Better to dissolve the Democrats.
The US seems to work with a Federal system containing semi-autonomous States. Not great but we seem to be OK with pot so far.

Indeed, not counties.
The relationship is analogous.
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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.
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.
And we have laws against crime and murder.

It is illegal in almost all public spaces to fire a weapon except for a single reason, the defense of yourself or another.

My concealed carry permit allows me to do one thing and one thing only. carry a weapon in such a manner that it cannot be detected by sight. It does not give me the right to draw that weapon or to fire that weapon.

If I fire my weapon in self defense there is no presumption of innocence if I kill a person. I have to legally justify that use of my weapon to the satisfaction of the court and/ or a jury.
I don't disagree with any of this. 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.
 
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.

it is not OK for any county to violate the Constitution of the United States.

What if your county wanted to suspend any other amendments?

You'd be OK with that?
I was not talking about the Constitution, only VA law. If the county violated the 2nd, it would be between the county and the Feds. No reason for VA to be involved.
The states are also bound by the US Constitution which is why no county in any state can suspend the Constitution
 
How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.
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?
 
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.


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.

There's only one compromise relevant to this issue that I would support.

Government is to strictly obey the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and to refrain from violating any rights affirmed therein. In exchange for this, the people will compromise by refraining from shooting government officials.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top