You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Va. Tech Families Protest State Gun Law
- Thread starter WSM MAGNUM
- Start date
Those "foreigners" are US citizens. They have the same rights to peacefully assemble and protest in VA that they do in every other US state. That they are not residents of VA should be taken into account by the VA State Reps they are trying to get the attention of though, and I am certain that one VA resident's opinion is of more value to a VA elected rep than that of someone from another state.
They do have every right though to go to a state an protest ANYTHING they wish. Many citizens went by bus to states which had Jim Crow laws on the books to protest them during the Civil Rights Movement, and I am glad they did. I suppose you would have told them to go home because they had no right to protest the racist actions of a state gov't in which they did not live though...
You don't have to agree with them. You can are fully entitled to let your state reps know they do not speak for you and you are the one whose vote they need. You cannot though claim they have no right to protest and then claim you understand the COTUS.
They do have every right though to go to a state an protest ANYTHING they wish. Many citizens went by bus to states which had Jim Crow laws on the books to protest them during the Civil Rights Movement, and I am glad they did. I suppose you would have told them to go home because they had no right to protest the racist actions of a state gov't in which they did not live though...
You don't have to agree with them. You can are fully entitled to let your state reps know they do not speak for you and you are the one whose vote they need. You cannot though claim they have no right to protest and then claim you understand the COTUS.
I'll say the same thing here I said on THR
Some folks think I'm a little cold on some of this stuff but I've had
-1 Close friend commit suicide (used a gun)
-3 Close friends killed by drunk drivers (one run down by an 18 wheeler while crossing the road in DC!)
-2 Close friends killed by robbers (one knife, one firearm)
-4 Close friends killed by terrorist attack (Pentagon)
and several other acquaintances either seriously injured or killed by "gang activity".
Not once, EVER, have I blamed the automobiles, knives, firearms, alcohol, etc. My sights always settle very firmly on the CRIMINALS and it drives me absolutely out of my mind when someone tries to shift blame from where it belongs (on the head of the criminal).
So someone like Cho moves himself "beyond justice". Hey sometimes that's how it works but the grief that is causing these folks to flail around and hurt others in their quest to "do something" should not be given legitimate status as a reason for making policy just because we sympathize with their grief.
Some folks think I'm a little cold on some of this stuff but I've had
-1 Close friend commit suicide (used a gun)
-3 Close friends killed by drunk drivers (one run down by an 18 wheeler while crossing the road in DC!)
-2 Close friends killed by robbers (one knife, one firearm)
-4 Close friends killed by terrorist attack (Pentagon)
and several other acquaintances either seriously injured or killed by "gang activity".
Not once, EVER, have I blamed the automobiles, knives, firearms, alcohol, etc. My sights always settle very firmly on the CRIMINALS and it drives me absolutely out of my mind when someone tries to shift blame from where it belongs (on the head of the criminal).
So someone like Cho moves himself "beyond justice". Hey sometimes that's how it works but the grief that is causing these folks to flail around and hurt others in their quest to "do something" should not be given legitimate status as a reason for making policy just because we sympathize with their grief.
DWARREN123
New member
Some will never learn.
That's your view...
The actual law of the land is a bit different.
This was settled pretty conclusively in April 1865.
Wars have consequences.
Yes, the people of VA have the right to control their own Legislature. That's why I can't vote for a member of the VA Legislature. But no State can pass a law that would strip the citizens of any other State of their 1st Amendment right of Peaceable Assembly. Your Legislators are, of course, free to tell them to get bent, and probably should. But shut them up, you cannot.
--Shannon
The actual law of the land is a bit different.
I'm sorry but you seem to have mistaken me for a yankee. I do not believe that I have a right to go to NY or CA and protest their laws. I may not like their laws, but I reckon they have a right to pass them.
It is Virginians that have a right to peaceably assemble and to petition Virginia government for a redress of grievances. And Californians that have a right to do so in CA, and New Yorkers that have a right to do so in NY. The point of it all is that the people of each State have a right to control their own legislature. I think you are WRONG to turn such fundamental principles against themselves by construing them to mean that foreigners have the same right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Virginia government as Virginians do.
This was settled pretty conclusively in April 1865.
Wars have consequences.
Yes, the people of VA have the right to control their own Legislature. That's why I can't vote for a member of the VA Legislature. But no State can pass a law that would strip the citizens of any other State of their 1st Amendment right of Peaceable Assembly. Your Legislators are, of course, free to tell them to get bent, and probably should. But shut them up, you cannot.
--Shannon
44capnball
New member
Hey sometimes that's how it works but the grief that is causing these folks to flail around and hurt others in their quest to "do something" should not be given legitimate status as a reason for making policy just because we sympathize with their grief.
+10
We're told one kind of tragedy where people die is more important than another kind of tragedy where people die.
At one point, Jeff Knox, director of operations of the Manassas-based Firearms Coalition, approached survivor Colin Goddard and said students could have stopped student Seung-Hui Cho's rampage if they had been allowed to carry guns on campus.
True, but hardly the kind of thing that you say to a survivor of such a tragedy.
I personaly would like to see it made harder for criminals and the mentaly ill to get firearms. Every time one of them pulls a V.Tech or Colombine, etc... all gun owners come under fire.
I happen to like Iowa's system whereby I go to the Sherrif's department once a year, pay $8, they run me through NICS and I get a peice of plastic saying that I am "legal" to purchase pistols and revolvers. It also saves me the time of having to get called into NICS on purchases of long guns. The only "waiting period" is waiting for the card to come in the mail.
I know what the tin-foil hat crowd is going to say about this("papers please") but it is the same background check that you get when you purchase a gun from a dealer and you only have to have it once a year.
I happen to like Iowa's system whereby I go to the Sherrif's department once a year, pay $8, they run me through NICS and I get a peice of plastic saying that I am "legal" to purchase pistols and revolvers. It also saves me the time of having to get called into NICS on purchases of long guns. The only "waiting period" is waiting for the card to come in the mail.
I would go for that as long as there were no charge. Sorry, but charging someone to exercise a COTUS right is no different than establishing a poll tax and that has long been ruled a no no. If gov't wants to establish such a verification system then is should be a gov't funded enterprise with the cost shared by all taxpayers since it is a right afforded to all taxpayers which they have chosen through their representatives to provide regulation of to ensure only law abiding citizens are qualified for legal purchases.