Virginia to ban all forms of self defense

[dvcochran]

I say go for it. I'm always amused when people try to implement silly things. Lets see how many residents he'll be able to deputize lol.

This is a very good "tip of the iceberg" event. People should not and will not stand for this type attempted government control.
Regardless of it's success, people will organize. The Sheriff using his appointed powers to help organize is simply fighting fire with fire.
There is a thread (this one maybe?)that has been talking about how 'loosely' organized the members of the continental army was. None the less, they got the job done.

 

[lklawson]

My friend majored in history in college and loves history more than I do. She was the one who told me about the issue that existed and the problems that existed but aren't highlighted in the history books in schools. One of it being that the states had their own military force and didn't work as a single unit with other states like today's military. If the state felt like it was better to protect the state then those soldiers wouldn't be sent to other states. Below is an example, which sheds a little light that there were definitely some organizational issues. I highlighted in read the issue.

Source: United States Army | History, Generals, Battles, & Structure
As the Revolution drew to a close, the Continental Congress asked Washington for his recommendations for a peacetime military force. In response, he prepared Sentiments on a Peace Establishment (May 1, 1783), a sweeping assessment of the strategic situation facing the new country. Washington believed that the United States needed only a small regular army to deal with Indian threats and to provide a nucleus for expansion by “a well-organized militia” in time of foreign war. Instead of the independent and diverse militia forces of the individual states, which had proved so unreliable during the Revolution

Different source:
Source:Continental Army
"When Washington assumed command, the Continental Army truly was not even an army. Rather, it was a loosely and poorly coordinated band of militias and citizen-soldiers under control of the individual states. There were no established protocols for exercising coordinated authority, for supplying and feeding the troops, for transportation, or any other of the myriad tasks necessary for a field army."

Think of how our state representatives fight among each other and then think about how they get very little done. Now give each state an army to control and try to have them come together and put their differences aside, without fighting about what's best for the country. It was pretty much like that. Which is why Washington wasn't fond of the Individual Militias controlled by the stated. Half of the states would be saying go to war, the other half will be saying no and as a result won't send men to fight.

Quote from Washington in Red Source: A Common American Soldier
"Washington was never enamored of the militia, once writing that "to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.""
"Toward the end of summer in 1775, he noticed that farmers serving in the militia vacated the field of battle as harvest time approached. Militia units dissolved when hostilities moved away from their home locales. Discipline was all but nonexistent in many units because most elected their officers and command authority was thus compromised."

None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."

 

[Rusty B]

Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company

This article just totally reeks of RWNJ paranoia.

 

[Gweilo]

This article just totally reeks of RWNJ paranoia.

I agree, it would be ludicrous, especially, if memory serves me well, recently the ban on purchasing or owning nunchuks in new york state was quashed due to the right to bare arms, it would be silly to implement it, just to pay lawyers to fight it in court.

 

[jobo]

Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass

that links comes back as unavailable to members of the european economic area

None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."

and non of that disagrees with his. at the time of the revolutionary war th

I agree, it would be ludicrous, especially, if memory serves me well, recently the ban on purchasing or owning nunchuks in new york state was quashed due to the right to bare arms, it would be silly to implement it, just to pay lawyers to fight it in court.

its not my usual MO, to point out spelling mistakes, because DOH

but it's worth noting that that most of the world ( with the exception of some extremely religious countries) , have the right to BARE arms, hell even this country doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[Gweilo]

that links comes back as unavailable to members of the european economic area

and non of that disagrees with his. at the time of the revolutionary war th

its not my usual MO, to point out spelling mistakes, because DOH



but it's worth noting that that most of the world ( with the exception of some extremely religious countries) , have the right to BARE arms, hell even this country doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[Gweilo]

Lol, you have opened a can of worms with that swipe, if you wasnt from Manchester I would take you seriously.

 

[JowGaWolf]

None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."

What I was speaking on was about the Militia. When I spoke about the organization it was about the Militia. I didn't say anything about a standing army or navy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is a very good "tip of the iceberg" event. People should not and will not stand for this type attempted government control.
Regardless of it's success, people will organize. The Sheriff using his appointed powers to help organize is simply fighting fire with fire.
There is a thread (this one maybe?)that has been talking about how 'loosely' organized the members of the continental army was. None the less, they got the job done.

just because they got the Job done means that's the best way to get the job done. D-day got the job done but no one believes that was the best way to get the job done. A country that only has a Militia and a small Standing Military is not the best was. Washington knew this in spite of having won the war.

As for Government control over gun regulation. There always has to be some sort of regulation. That's just the natural flow of a functioning society.

 

[dvcochran]

just because they got the Job done means that's the best way to get the job done. D-day got the job done but no one believes that was the best way to get the job done. A country that only has a Militia and a small Standing Military is not the best was. Washington knew this in spite of having won the war.

As for Government control over gun regulation. There always has to be some sort of regulation. That's just the natural flow of a functioning society.

As far as the Revolutionary war and D-day, I believe the way things were done were thought to be the best, or only way to keep moving forward.

I agree that a functioning government makes for a functioning society. But why would you want a government so in control that your human rights and freedoms are taken away? We are a highly educated and thinking country. It so rings of the old saying "if we don't learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it".
Some of this is the same government that approves late term abortions. With the exception of risk to the mother, how on any level is that right? A person, who should have already been in control of their actions, has had most of a year to make this Very big decision. Government services to aid in making the decision and navigate the process is reasonable. Government aid to commit literal murder it NOT. Government telling me I cannot learn how to, or to own items for personal protection is ridiculous. Look at Chicago's murder rate After banning weapons as an example.
This is the kind of stuff in government that will cause people to rise up. Someone referenced the New York debacle. It is scary to think how many things like this which are Driven from Within government occur just so a lot of money can be made off of it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People believe hysterical rants and either cannot or will not simply read the text of the actual bill. Good grief, what a pack of ninnies.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But why would you want a government so in control that your human rights and freedoms are taken away?

The government is already in control. That's how you have human rights in the first place. The Government ensures that.. There's this assumption and false narrative that we just pop out of the womb and have rights and that everything the government does some how takes away from our rights. The constitution is a government document. The laws governing child labor, slavery, freedom of speech, equal rights, business law and criminal law are all government creations that protect you. And the only reason those laws exist is because the government is so in control that your human rights and freedoms are protected.

If the government wasn't "so in control" then there is no way for them to ensure rights and freedoms. If the government has no power to take away freedoms then murder would be legal. Child abuse would be legal, rape would be legal, segregation would be legal. All of those are freedoms, but not every freedom is beneficial to a society. Some freedoms cause more harm than good because humans don't know how to act. If humans didn't murder then there would be no need for laws against murder. If humans didn't rape, then there would be no need for laws against rape. If humans didn't shoot each other up with guns then there would be no need for laws to restrict gun use.

We are a highly educated and thinking country

I don't think so. I think we are ignorant, arrogant, greedy and harmful to ourselves in each other without guidance and restrictions. I don't think this only applies to the U.S. I think this applies to humans in general.

My opinion and belief that a small percentage of us can actually control ourselves, A much larger percentage are only willing to do so only because a law or restriction exists that controls and guides our behavior. Then there's a small percentage of humans that do wrong simply because they can and because they want to. Take a way the law controlling bribery and you'll see even more people doing it. Take a way the law dealing with theft and you'll see more people doing. I'm not impresses with the intelligence of humans in general. Given the opportunity to do things without consequence, humans will be the worst.

if we don't learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it"

And some how we always tend to repeat the errors of the past. Which is why we also say "history repeats itself". Which makes not have great confidence in the intelligence nor education of humans in general.

Some of this is the same government that approves late term abortions. With the exception of risk to the mother, how on any level is that right?

My thing about abortion is what programs, educations, and support are being provided to encourage people to keep a child vs having an abortion? Not having abortion centers doesn't stop abortions. We have already seen this in the past, abortion centers didn't just pop up, abortions have always been going on. Is abortion right? depends on the situation. Your father rapes your sister and she becomes pregnant" Is that right? Do you think you should have say over her and her pregnancy? A criminal rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant? What's your call going to be has the husband? Do you want to take care of the child of the man who raped your wife? Do you even get any say on that because you aren't the one who is pregnant?

I think people make abortion too much of a "black and white" issue. People are going to have their own decisions to make and some are going to be more difficult than others. Do I personally agree with abortion? Nope, but that's just me that's my choice. Would I agree with it if any of those scenarios above became true? I probably wouldn't like, but I would probably not doing it as well. There's not always an easy out. And people are going to have to make their own decisions about stuff like that. But instead of trying to outlaw it, I would spend more effort trying to teach the value of family and providing support systems for Teenage pregnancies, and single parent pregnancies. I would want social programs that would help make it feel less like a burden. At least that way women may be less likely to feel like they need one unless it was in an extreme case. The social program would also include men who were the cause of it except in the case of Rape or some other crime.

Look at Chicago's murder rate After banning weapons as an example.

Guns are only part of the problem. If you have people fighting over territory and street credit then you are going to have guns on the street. Chicago's violence is a multiple cause and effect. When you look at the gun violence in Chicago, you have to also look at why the violence is happening in the first place. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of the guns in Chicago will solve everything is fooling themselves. There are some systematic issue in Chicago that require a muti-solution approach.

This is the kind of stuff in government that will cause people to rise up. Someone referenced the New York debacle. It is scary to think how many things like this which are Driven from Within government occur just so a lot of money can be made off of it.

Here's the thing. Teach people how to be better leaders and you'll have better leaders. Teach people how to pick leaders based on real needs and not political arguments and you'll have better governments.

Demand and expect more quality from your elected leaders and you'll get better quality leaders. Everyone expects and assumes that politicians are no good and that the government is no good, and no one does anything to improve it. So what do you expect will be the outcome. Want a better government , then pick people who want to solve problems, people who are willing to listen, and people aren't all about Politics as some can of entertainment sport. IRONY people complain about those in government yet we are the ones who put them there and then blame the Government for who we choose.

 

[JowGaWolf]

People believe hysterical rants and either cannot or will not simply read the text of the actual bill. Good grief, what a pack of ninnies.

So true. 5 alarm fire over small stuff that has nothing to do with "taking guns away" or taking freedoms away. When tell me that the government is trying to take freedoms away, the first thing I ask is. "What freedom did you have yesterday, that you no longer have today?" To this day, I have never gotten an answer.

 

[dvcochran]

The government is already in control. That's how you have human rights in the first place. The Government ensures that.. There's this assumption and false narrative that we just pop out of the womb and have rights and that everything the government does some how takes away from our rights. The constitution is a government document. The laws governing child labor, slavery, freedom of speech, equal rights, business law and criminal law are all government creations that protect you. And the only reason those laws exist is because the government is so in control that your human rights and freedoms are protected.

If the government wasn't "so in control" then there is no way for them to ensure rights and freedoms. If the government has no power to take away freedoms then murder would be legal. Child abuse would be legal, rape would be legal, segregation would be legal. All of those are freedoms, but not every freedom is beneficial to a society. Some freedoms cause more harm than good because humans don't know how to act. If humans didn't murder then there would be no need for laws against murder. If humans didn't rape, then there would be no need for laws against rape. If humans didn't shoot each other up with guns then there would be no need for laws to restrict gun use.

I do not believe that at all, and I feel this is true for a majority of people. I am not "good" because some government official says "be good". It is a part of human Nature. In the natural course of growing we each learn how to communicate, interact, give, accept, love, on and on; we are innately human but also learn how to be human from other humans as well as our elements and conditions. It is an incredible transformation a person goes through from the time of birth to adulthood. We are so very much cause and effect creatures.
In legal terms, human rights were/are?/should be written by the people, using government Only as a conduit to create laws decided upon by the people. Re: founding fathers stuff.

don't think so. I think we are ignorant, arrogant, greedy and harmful to ourselves in each other without guidance and restrictions. I don't think this only applies to the U.S. I think this applies to humans in general.

My opinion and belief that a small percentage of us can actually control ourselves, A much larger percentage are only willing to do so only because a law or restriction exists that controls and guides our behavior. Then there's a small percentage of humans that do wrong simply because they can and because they want to. Take a way the law controlling bribery and you'll see even more people doing it. Take a way the law dealing with theft and you'll see more people doing. I'm not impresses with the intelligence of humans in general. Given the opportunity to do things without consequence, humans will be the worst.

Your opinion of humans is frankly, offensive and sad. Don't you think there is Much more good than bad in people? The mindset of creating law based Only on the exceptions is immoral and illegal.
The basis of most laws does very little. The action of a law is what can make it effective. Using your theft reference as an example; just yesterday I was in civil court regarding a tractor I had stolen 2 1/2 years ago. Long story short, the people involved had/have created a small theft ring in where they were able to deflect any claims made toward any one person. In other words they learned how to beat the system. If our government is so smart and all powerful, how do things like this happen? If Enforcement was given teeth the criminals would think much harder about their actions. In other words, if a murderer knew they would be executed for their actions, murder rates Would go down. Look at Singapore.

My thing about abortion is what programs, educations, and support are being provided to encourage people to keep a child vs having an abortion? Not having abortion centers doesn't stop abortions. We have already seen this in the past, abortion centers didn't just pop up, abortions have always been going on. Is abortion right? depends on the situation. Your father rapes your sister and she becomes pregnant" Is that right? Do you think you should have say over her and her pregnancy? A criminal rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant? What's your call going to be has the husband? Do you want to take care of the child of the man who raped your wife? Do you even get any say on that because you aren't the one who is pregnant?


I think people make abortion too much of a "black and white" issue. People are going to have their own decisions to make and some are going to be more difficult than others. Do I personally agree with abortion? Nope, but that's just me that's my choice. Would I agree with it if any of those scenarios above became true? I probably wouldn't like, but I would probably not doing it as well. There's not always an easy out. And people are going to have to make their own decisions about stuff like that. But instead of trying to outlaw it, I would spend more effort trying to teach the value of family and providing support systems for Teenage pregnancies, and single parent pregnancies. I would want social programs that would help make it feel less like a burden. At least that way women may be less likely to feel like they need one unless it was in an extreme case. The social program would also include men who were the cause of it except in the case of Rape or some other crime.

Not at all what I said. I said nothing about whether I think abortions are right or moral. I said why would someone wait until the child is borne or at the point of birth to kill it? And why does government think they should step in and enforce such actions?
If there is a compelling reason for a person the have an abortion, they have had more than ample time to make the decision. Call it what it really is and it changes the dynamic of the conversation. Even the term abortion is used to shield the intenseness of what is really happening. Creating 'nice' words so that the conversation about something is 'nice or civil' does not make the reality of what is happening nice or civil at all.
Yes, I fully agree there are conditions that merit the action but waiting until the point of birth to do it? No, never.​

Guns are only part of the problem. If you have people fighting over territory and street credit then you are going to have guns on the street. Chicago's violence is a multiple cause and effect. When you look at the gun violence in Chicago, you have to also look at why the violence is happening in the first place. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of the guns in Chicago will solve everything is fooling themselves. There are some systematic issue in Chicago that require a muti-solution approach.

Here's the thing. Teach people how to be better leaders and you'll have better leaders. Teach people how to pick leaders based on real needs and not political arguments and you'll have better governments.

Research the history of Chicago crime before and after gun restraints. Then do the same for say Massachusetts who repealed gun law. ​

Clearly you are all in for Big government.

Demand and expect more quality from your elected leaders and you'll get better quality leaders. Everyone expects and assumes that politicians are no good and that the government is no good, and no one does anything to improve it. So what do you expect will be the outcome. Want a better government , then pick people who want to solve problems, people who are willing to listen, and people aren't all about Politics as some can of entertainment sport. IRONY people complain about those in government yet we are the ones who put them there and then blame the Government for who we choose.

How do you not understand that liberty has been taken away. There are no term limits for much of government. An action created and implemented from within government, for government, not the people.

I am sorry you have such a lowly view of mankind that we should have nose rings and be led around on a chain. Pun intended.

For decades we have continued to add layers of federal government and laws in an attempt to improve society. It has created a system that is so big and top heavy is it impossible for any person to fully understand what is going on. Somewhere in all of it people saw that they could capitalize upon this mechanism financially and politically.
One agenda continues to push this envelope.

 

[jobo]

I do not believe that at all, and I feel this is true for a majority of people. I am not "good" because some government official says "be good". It is a part of human Nature. In the natural course of growing we each learn how to communicate, interact, give, accept, love, on and on; we are innately human but also learn how to be human from other humans as well as our elements and conditions. It is an incredible transformation a person goes through from the time of birth to adulthood. We are so very much cause and effect creatures.
In legal terms, human rights were/are?/should be written by the people, using government Only as a conduit to create laws decided upon by the people. Re: founding fathers stuff.



Your opinion of humans is frankly, offensive and sad. Don't you think there is Much more good than bad in people? The mindset of creating law based Only on the exceptions is immoral and illegal.
The basis of most laws does very little. The action of a law is what can make it effective. Using your theft reference as an example; just yesterday I was in civil court regarding a tractor I had stolen 2 1/2 years ago. Long story short, the people involved had/have created a small theft ring in where they were able to deflect any claims made toward any one person. In other words they learned how to beat the system. If our government is so smart and all powerful, how do things like this happen? If Enforcement was given teeth the criminals would think much harder about their actions. In other words, if a murderer knew they would be executed for their actions, murder rates Would go down. Look at Singapore.

Not at all what I said. I said nothing about whether I think abortions are right or moral. I said why would someone wait until the child is borne or at the point of birth to kill it? And why does government think they should step in and enforce such actions?
If there is a compelling reason for a person the have an abortion, they have had more than ample time to make the decision. Call it what it really is and it changes the dynamic of the conversation. Even the term abortion is used to shield the intenseness of what is really happening. Creating 'nice' words so that the conversation about something is 'nice or civil' does not make the reality of what is happening nice or civil at all.
Yes, I fully agree there are conditions that merit the action but waiting until the point of birth to do it? No, never.​

How do you not understand that liberty has been taken away. There are no term limits for much of government. An action created and implemented from within government, for government, not the people.

I am sorry you have such a lowly view of mankind that we should have nose rings and be led around on a chain. Pun intended.

For decades we have continued to add layers of federal government and laws in an attempt to improve society. It has created a system that is so big and top heavy is it impossible for any person to fully understand what is going on. Somewhere in all of it people saw that they could capitalize upon this mechanism financially and politically.
One agenda continues to push this envelope.

theres an inherent contradiction in what your saying, one one hand you want human rights( and who doesn't, the whole concept that humans have inalienable rights was the biggest step forward this world has ever made)

on the other you seem to support the death penalty, of all the rights human have, the right to life is the most important. with out that the rest are meaningless

So it seems you only want your government to champion the human rights that fit your view

know i know your going to say something like '' if they take a life, they give up their own right to life'' but the very meaning of the term '' inallaible'' means that not possible

once you support a policy of a government choosing which human right you can have, you cant really complain if the same government also removes rights you think are important

 

[lklawson]

What I was speaking on was about the Militia. When I spoke about the organization it was about the Militia. I didn't say anything about a standing army or navy.

What you specifically wrote was: "This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause."

And that's just not correct.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

What you specifically wrote was: "This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause."

And that's just not correct.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

well no, lets be clear. The united states did not have a well organised army in the '' revolutionary war, as there was no united states at the time

 

[lklawson]

well no, lets be clear. The united states did not have a well organised army in the '' revolutionary war, as there was no united states at the time

Stop trying to be a pedant. It doesn't look good on anyone.

 

[jobo]

Stop trying to be a pedant. It doesn't look good on anyone.

your pedantic.aly pursuing a line of argument whilst making manifestly untrue statement and accusing the people who devote time and effort to point out your grossly incorrect statements of being pendants.

its not just a slip, you've made the same error repeatedly, whilst lecturing other on history

 

[lklawson]

your pedantic.aly pursuing a line of argument whilst making manifestly untrue statement and accusing the people who devote time and effort to point out your grossly incorrect statements of being pendants.

its not just a slip, you've made the same error repeatedly, whilst lecturing other on history

Incorrect. There has always been a standing army NOT made of up Militia, starting from the Revolutionary War and going forward. Indisputable fact.