Comments on: ’1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!’

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:49:59 +0000

I won’t get into how I feel about driver’s licenses except to say that you should not have to have a license or special training to exercise a Constitutional Right.

By: John T. Miles

John T. Miles — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:26:55 +0000

I’m not sure who is using cars for self defense. I guess that’s what they mean by “defensive driving”.

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:58:19 +0000

“The driver licensure laws should not require any training. Yes, training is a good idea if you have never had it, but the law should not require it.”

You think that makes sense, Jack?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:57:19 +0000

@Sandi Saunders,

We’re not talking about an accomplice or anything like that. We’re talking about your being the victim of a crime, and then the perpetrator of that crime commits another crime in the future and you are liable for it.

I agree about the accomplices thing.. but that is completely different.

In the proposed legislation:

You own a gun. You put it in your house. You lock your house. Your house is burglarized and the gun is stolen. You are liable for any future crimes committed with that gun.

You did nothing wrong.

Some would say you should have bought a safe for the guns. I would say that you stored them in your home and locked the doors and that should be enough.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:48:23 +0000

Not sure what you are whining about now, but we have had laws that hold accomplices and those who knew of some intent, responsible criminally for a long time. Why not civilly?

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:46:29 +0000

Human beings have historically rewarded or punished groups because of individual actions. It is how we govern. When did they pass a law that said John Wilburn can or cannot _______? That is not how laws are made or how decisions are made. Any proposed action is looked at in light of the whole of society not just a subset with a yen for _________. The fact that individuals can get their rights stymied or even trampled while someone else gets to enjoy theirs is also a historical fact. Much like the difference in being born rich or poor. A lot of things happen due to circumstance, region, norms or events that no one individual was part of.

Simply allowing anything “until someone is hurt” is a ridiculous way for a society to operate, on any scale. Ask any parent. There are precautions and regulations for a reason and that they do not prevent every wrong or abuse is no reason not to have them. After the carnage action is too little too late. These mass shooting assault rifles are just not something society should ever have had, not something anyone needs, not something productive or viable in society. They are expendable on every level.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:05:24 +0000

JohnW…No, I don’t, as I have noted many, many times. I think drug use is a health, not criminal, issue. And the DEA a huge pointless drain on the budget. Happy?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:57:40 +0000

The law should not require any training. Yes, training is a good idea if you have never had it, but the law should not require it.

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:55:33 +0000

“As you know, we already have new legislation that is going to be introduced in this session in Virginia that would make one citizen civilly responsible for the criminal acts of another.”
–Comment by Jack

Indeed! And there also is legislation to repeal the silly law Cuccinelli sponsored in 2009 that allows people who have never touched a handgun in their lives to procure a concealed carry permit!

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:49:21 +0000

John Wilburn,

As you know, we already have new legislation that is going to be introduced in this session in Virginia that would make one citizen civilly responsible for the criminal acts of another.