Virginia's AG Doesn't Care What The Parchment States. Claims Virginians want Gun Control

Pretty sure it's closer to 20% but yeah...

I would imagine it would be similar here, if not higher...at least number of people wise. I hold a belief that a small portion of gun owners own the major majority of firearms. It’s all just from observation, but I would bet that out of 100 gun owners, 90 of them maybe have 1 or possibly 2. Of the remaining 10 you have those with a few, and then there is that one or two who are like most of us here and the true figures would make libruls nervous. I could easily see many of those 90 turning in whatever because “they just don’t care.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would imagine it would be similar here, if not higher...at least number of people wise. I hold a belief that a small portion of gun owners own the major majority of firearms. It’s all just from observation, but I would bet that out of 100 gun owners, 90 of them maybe have 1 or possibly 2. Of the remaining 10 you have those with a few, and then there is that one or two who are like most of us here and the true figures would make libruls nervous. I could easily see many of those 90 turning in whatever because “they just don’t care.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually read a little after I posted that. It's around 30% in NZ.

However, compare that to NY State's SAFE Act at about 4%... And that's NY...

I can't imagine VA being even 4%...
 
I actually read a little after I posted that. It's around 30% in NZ.

However, compare that to NY State's SAFE Act at about 4%... And that's NY...

I can't imagine VA being even 4%...
Most of that would be from a very few counties, mostly near DC in NoVA, I bet.
 
I agree, it just illustrates the point that this Attorney General will pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce and the ones he wants to ignore but expects all citizens of the state to follow him.

As a Police Officer I find it "interesting" that a State AG can "pick and Choose" which laws to ignore, but then claim that Police will be prosecuted for ignoring laws that they find unconstitutional. I'm very interested to see how this backfires on him and the State of Virginia. There is either discretion on the law or there is not. There is either one rule of law or there is not. There is no secondary set of legal standards for a certain group (liberal democrats) over another group in the law, only equal protection and application. There is no obligation (actually there is a duty to follow the constitution of the state and the country) to follow an unjust/illegal order/law. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out indeed.
 
As a Police Officer I find it "interesting" that a State AG can "pick and Choose" which laws to ignore, but then claim that Police will be prosecuted for ignoring laws that they find unconstitutional. I'm very interested to see how this backfires on him and the State of Virginia. There is either discretion on the law or there is not. There is either one rule of law or there is not. There is no secondary set of legal standards for a certain group (liberal democrats) over another group in the law, only equal protection and application. There is no obligation (actually there is a duty to follow the constitution of the state and the country) to follow an unjust/illegal order/law. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out indeed.

You are 100% correct. In theory. But in practice the Dems believe not in the rule of law, but the rule of men. So in their world it is perfectly fine to have a set of laws for their chosen people and groups, and a different set for others. And they have no problem changing the laws or definitions to suit their needs. It’s how totalitarian states are run throughout history.
 
You are 100% correct. In theory. But in practice the Dems believe not in the rule of law, but the rule of men. So in their world it is perfectly fine to have a set of laws for their chosen people and groups, and a different set for others. And they have no problem changing the laws or definitions to suit their needs. It’s how totalitarian states are run throughout history.

I agree with your assessment, but I and others in my profession don't agree with their views on that. In fact we see it as an ultimate slap in the face when someone sees themselves (either as an individual or a group) as being in-equal and above the law. In fact as a group in LEO's we find that as a serious affront and a challenge... so there's that.
 
As a Police Officer I find it "interesting" that a State AG can "pick and Choose" which laws to ignore, but then claim that Police will be prosecuted for ignoring laws that they find unconstitutional. I'm very interested to see how this backfires on him and the State of Virginia. There is either discretion on the law or there is not. There is either one rule of law or there is not. There is no secondary set of legal standards for a certain group (liberal democrats) over another group in the law, only equal protection and application. There is no obligation (actually there is a duty to follow the constitution of the state and the country) to follow an unjust/illegal order/law. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out indeed.

Is it not properly called, "Selective Enforcement?"
 
Is it not properly called, "Selective Enforcement?"
Yes it is. And as in life, nothing is black and white. However, selective enforcement is on small level misdemeanors such as personal possession of marijuana or traffic infractions. That is what we call "discretion" as in based on the totality of the circumstances. We are allowed to decide that if based on the totality of the circumstances we decide that it warrants further enforcement we can decide to arrest or cite (or either/or). It becomes a much different animal when basic rights and oaths of office (IE; constitutional rights, etc) come into question.
 
As a Police Officer I find it "interesting" that a State AG can "pick and Choose" which laws to ignore, but then claim that Police will be prosecuted for ignoring laws that they find unconstitutional. I'm very interested to see how this backfires on him and the State of Virginia. There is either discretion on the law or there is not. There is either one rule of law or there is not. There is no secondary set of legal standards for a certain group (liberal democrats) over another group in the law, only equal protection and application. There is no obligation (actually there is a duty to follow the constitution of the state and the country) to follow an unjust/illegal order/law. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out indeed.
Someone else, probably @tanstaafl72555 posted this from Fredrick Bastiat’s pamphlet about 150 years ago.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

The extension to this being that govts. are instituted in order to secure these few basic inherent rights. Anytime we go past those, as any govt. is going to do for thst is the nature of man, it becomes a perversion. What they’re trying to do in VA is a perversion and The People are absolutely justified in defending against it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your assessment, but I and others in my profession don't agree with their views on that. In fact we see it as an ultimate slap in the face when someone sees themselves (either as an individual or a group) as being in-equal and above the law. In fact as a group in LEO's we find that as a serious affront and a challenge... so there's that.

The problem is that people ARE above "the law." They really are. Of course, by this I mean "the law" NOT as the principles of justice which are in conformity with the DOI and the Constitution. The problem comes in when tyrants (lets call them what they are) think that because they can legislate tyrannnical precepts that people are obligated to respect them out of respect for the true moral law. We are not. Nor are we obligated to submit to, respect, obey, or assist those carrying out such precepts. People are sovereign over this, and not only have the right, but the obligation to resist unjust laws.

Any thinking person will immediately recoil from this and object "but this is a recipe for anarchy, with each man deciding for himself what is legal"... and there is truth to that charge and it is a danger. This is why the list of legal codes should be SMALL, and I mean miniscule.

Anything other than statutes which forbid (I did not say PREVENT, I said FORBID, and there is a huge difference) causing harm to another's property or person are illegitimate and have no MORAL force of law. They may have statutory force, but have no moral basis.

Of course, this sounds to moderns like someone wailing a song in Ugaritic or chanting Sanskrit, it is so out of our grid. One of the first things LEOs/lawyers/criminal justice workers hear is "the law is NOT about morality or justice... it is about LAW and nothing else." This sounds pretty, but is nonsense. It may "work" so long as the moral structures of society are agreed on, but as our post Christian age continues to dissolve, and the moral bulwarks crumble, there becomes zero difference in bureaucrats shuffling papers and prisoners into jail for real crimes vs wonks gleefully filing mass numbers of incarcerations for having too many mags, or evil black rifles, or criticizing government, or .... crap, whatever some little tyrant decides somewhere is "law." THIS PRINCIPLE IS ALSO FOR LEO's. Once "law" is divorced from moral absolutes, people who enforce and prosecute the law can and will morph, as a body, into a bunch of goons who see themselves as enabled to work violence (some will learn to like it, as well) on anyone who does not "comply." This is not a personal accusation. I have met you and you know I respect you. You also know it is the truth. Zeal for "the law" as nothing more than codified regs will breed monsters who enforce it, and lead to a "us v them" mentality that is NOT just the punks and thugs, but society wide. Of course, we see what the rejection of principles in writing law is doing across the nation in the impeachment farce and the VA gun laws.

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" said Jefferson. This is serious stuff, and you can be a pagan in a room full of Christians and still understand that. Jefferson is an example. However, in a room full of pagans who all nod to each other about "the law" as important, but reject the universal moral principles on which law sits, it is weird how that view doesn't seem to come up so much. Instead, we see murder protected as a "right" and mass murder as a foreign policy, theft encoded as revenue law and megatheft in the form of money creation/generation, petty regulations defining stuff as stupid as hair braiding, and all sorts of other nanny state idiocy. All this is because "law" has become divorced from morality, and people instinctively know that this type of "law" has no moral force behind it..., and is in fact tyrannical.

All this stuff ain't just about piety and sitting in a church on Sunday. It has broad implications for society, and we are seeing them happen.
 
Last edited:
https://instagram.com/trijiconch?igshid=1endxww9n9bsf

Instagram keeps banning this guy but he seems to be the frontline there. He’s been a huge part at organizing the 2A sanctuary movement and crashed a Brady Campaign organized event last night. These are the people we should be supporting, of course the beloved NRA is just using this as a fund raising scheme.
 
https://instagram.com/trijiconch?igshid=1endxww9n9bsf

Instagram keeps banning this guy but he seems to be the frontline there. He’s been a huge part at organizing the 2A sanctuary movement and crashed a Brady Campaign organized event last night. These are the people we should be supporting, of course the beloved NRA is just using this as a fund raising scheme.

Of course...

Then, if the governor and AG back down, Wayne & Co. will be jumping up and down shouting, "See..look what we did for you!"

and those MFers didn't do jack shite.
 
I haven't read or seen a news story anywhere that shows the NRA speaking out about this at all. Wayne must be having a new custom suit fitted?

A custom law suit. Yeah, buddy!

That's right.

;)
 
The redistricting is a very big story that the media isn't carrying because they want it. My Congressman, George Holding, took a look at his new district and retired, saying it was now a safe Democrat seat. Most observers now say we'll go from 10 R's / 3 D's to 8 R's and 5 D's, just on the redistricting. Scariest part, though, is the state legislature. Flip five seats in both the House and Senate, and assuming Roy Cooper is re-elected, you'll have NJ gun control here just like in Virginia. And Bloomberg has us in his sights. I might have to move to SC. At least there I won't have to see those scary open carry people.

this would be huge disappoint after finally getting away from all that. Unfortunately life responsibilities get in the way. I work in biotech and my wife biopharma, so it was here or Boston for careers (we are in early 30s so hugely weighted variable). TN was at top of our wish list, but, while the economy is booming there, the sectors we work in are small and disparate across the state. We would have been safe there for sure. I think liberals have nightmares when they hear “Tennessee”.

that being said, I’m grateful of what NC provides for us. I have no regrets. I can hunt with whatever gun I want, I can have whatever mags I desire, whatever guns I desire, larger ranges more beautiful country, infinitely fewer liberals, strong biotech economy....only negative is the potential risk of that all getting flushed down the toilet, but I’ll take things 1 day at a time for now.
 
If you don’t already think Dems are f’ing loony here you go...

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/23/virginia-house-zoning-environment/
W....T....F....

racist lol. That some funny poop right there. Something tells me the oligarchs who drop billions in political campaigns plus the politicians themselves are exempt. Though I would absolutely love to see Pelosi sharing unit with some local drug dealers...she either get hard or get got realllk quick . B$&? Will be begging to bring guns back
 
What is the end game with people, elected officials, or just general morons that are so mentally wacked they cannot be reasoned with? How do people that cannotmget along on any level co-exist?
Their end game is control. My "?" was because I don't understand your response to my comment, i.e. who is the she you're referring to? I'm not hostile; I'm confused! :)

Anyway, the sane part is that they know they can't gain power/control over a healthy adversary. So (the calculating part) they seek to weaken the adversary. Since they can't win by a frontal assault, they must weaken it from within. Ergo, get a powerful central government (State) to pass a law that lesser governments (county, municiple) are subordinate to, that alters & therefore weakens those communities by mandating changes to development ordinances. Those changes "create opportunities" for development, but in ways that disrupt the traditionally functional neighborhoods.

Use the force of law to open a healthy, succesful community up to greater density and diversity*, (re)creating the turmoil found in the urban centers, keep the various factions pitted against each other. Then present the same folks who brought the strife as the Wise Leaders with solutions to the problems, which solutions intensify the fractiousness, and keep repeating the cycle until the formerly healthy adversary is destroyed.

Before anyone jumps in to accuse me of using code words promoting racism in neighborhoods, I'll point out that race is merely one way to divide people and create tension. Other ways to use lawfare to disrupt functioning systems are to force Catholic social services to provide birth control, Christian health organizations to provide/fund abortion, compel unisex membership in boy & girl support organizations (scouts, school clubs), put biological male competitors into women's competitions, and [read any news article in the last 10 years and fill in this blank].

Divide and conquer. It may be for evil ends, but it's sane.
_________________________
*Enlisting the help of their development & builder cronies, who in turn make generous donations to the campaigns...
 
Hey @Windini as Lawless likes to say:

e3270ac88ff42443.png


He’s right. Diversity, racial or otherwise, combined with close proximity equals conflict.
 
Hey @Windini as Lawless likes to say:

e3270ac88ff42443.png


He’s right. Diversity, racial or otherwise, combined with close proximity equals conflict.

It might actually get the suburbanites off their pedestals and into the fray to suddenly find the inner city living next door....
 
Diversity...combined with close proximity equals conflict.
It often does. However, that's not a universal law of human interaction.

It often does, and can be made to happen with effective propaganda. Step 1: identify 2 separate groups. Step 2: convince at least one group that there is an ABSOLUTELY IRRECONCILABLE difference between the two groups. Step 3: convince group A that group B has risen above group A by exploiting/oppressing/robbing group B. Step 4: force these two "diverse" groups into close proximity.

Yep - then conflict is almost inevitable.

But another outcome is possible. I was a child of the 60's and 70's. Yes, it was the era of hippies & left-leaning philosophy, etc., but not in my family nor in the schools I attended. The message I remember was the Melting Pot idea - trite, hackneyed by today's jaded and cynical standard perhaps, but still noble. The idea that, no matter what you were born into, where your family originated, we were all united by being American. Further, being American meant that we all had rights, equal under the law, and that, therefore, we all had the right to strive, the opportunity to try.

Success wasn't garunteed. Opulence wasn't a right. Having all the same goodies as your neighbor wasn't something you were entitled to; you had to earn your stuff.

That message encouraged people - however "diverse" they might be - to work for themselves, sometimes independently & indifferent to others, sometimes shoulder-to-shoulder with others in healthy competition, sometimes side-by-side with others in teams toward mutually beneficial goals. That message encouraged self-reliance, furthered respect for people of any background as you witnessed them striving and succeeding, and encouraged empathy for others when you saw them work as hard as you and suffer setbacks -- some self-inflicted, but many just the circumstantial vagaries of life.

That's the message of America that inspires the protesters in Hong Kong and attracts immigrants from all over the world. Is that message an accurate depiction of gritty reality? Has the system ever worked perfectly? Of course not. But it's an inspiring message! It's an message that could/ should unite us as a free people: the idea that each of us has the freedom to try.

That's the message the Left is Hell-bent on destroying.
 
As a Police Officer I find it "interesting" that a State AG can "pick and Choose" which laws to ignore, but then claim that Police will be prosecuted for ignoring laws that they find unconstitutional. I'm very interested to see how this backfires on him and the State of Virginia. There is either discretion on the law or there is not. There is either one rule of law or there is not. There is no secondary set of legal standards for a certain group (liberal democrats) over another group in the law, only equal protection and application. There is no obligation (actually there is a duty to follow the constitution of the state and the country) to follow an unjust/illegal order/law. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out indeed.

All you have to do is look at what Comey did to Hillary over her emails. Two sets of rules, two sets of standards.
 
That's the message of America that inspires the protesters in Hong Kong and attracts immigrants from all over the world. Is that message an accurate depiction of gritty reality? Has the system ever worked perfectly? Of course not. But it's an inspiring message! It's an message that could/ should unite us as a free people: the idea that each of us has the freedom to try.

Hard-times-create-strong-men-400x600.jpg


Yeah, I'm very pro-immigration, as long as we let the right immigrants in. This open borders stuff only encourages the lazy who feel entitled to everything to flood in instead of the people who want to work hard, make their own way, and be GOOD AMERICANS.
 
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/24/...budget-in-anticipation-of-jailing-gun-owners/

Northam appears to be all in on this. Wow. Maybe they intend to push it as far as they can. Maybe they want violence.
From that article:
The budget bill (HB30) includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.
So Gov Blackface thinks he’s going to put people in prison does he. The first time they try to enforce one iota of this nonsense, the militias need to march on Richmond and haul him out of office, along with his AG.
 
If that is correct in fact then he must not plan on locking too many folks up. $250,000 won't last very long on even a minute number of prisoners. The average cost for federal incarceration is $100 per day so at that rate, if he held 100 people for a month he has already run over budget. Maybe just hide your stuff, let them lock everyone up they can and watch Virginia go broke in a week.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom