The liberals seem okay with “Sanctuary Cities” where they protect illegal aliens against federal law. It's time liberals realize two can play that game. Many counties and cities around the country declared themselves “2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.” These are places that refuse to follow gun laws they believe are unfair or designed to remove a citizen's guns.
Could this be the start of another Civil War? I lived in a rural part of Virginia for several years before leaving. I believe these people would not back down from a shooting war if it came to it. It worries me. I think the liberals have over stepped their bounds in a big way this time.
“Virginia – Earlier in the week, we reported on how lawmakers over in Virginia were threatening to use the National Guard if members of local law enforcement refused to enforce laws passed in the state that they felt violated the second amendment.
Well, looks like Tazewell County isn’t going down without a fight. On top of calling themselves a second amendment sanctuary county, they’re also crafting a militia as well. The Virginia county has taken the movement that has swept across the state and added an element that is sure to trigger pro gun-grabbing politicians in the state.”
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/it- … onal-laws/
My town in New Jersey recently declared itself a "Second Amendment Sanctuary City" as well. We're a semi-rural area so there are a lot of hunters/gun owners/etc. (I personally am not a gun owner, but have no problems with those who are).
The reaction to the announcement seemed to be, more or less, "So we're a what now? Meh, whatever. (shrug)"
Rebel yell rings out as USMC major warns Virginians are close to tipping point
"The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers I've heard on more than one occasion tell me they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically," Woods said, "because they believe that there are so many people angry -- in gun shops, gun shows, at bars we've heard it now -- people talking about tarring and feathering politicians in a less-than-joking manner."
https://www.wnd.com/2019/12/rebel-yell- … 0jd31A2z5g
Angry people with guns. Seems like a losing cause...
Maybe you need to read some history. It was angry people with guns who created this country and have defended it.
This country is still in existence and we have the military to defend us, and we don't need gung-ho republicans to keep it.
You wouldn't have an issue with gung ho Republicans if there weren't bullying democrats trashing the Constitution.
I suppose back in the time of the founding of our country you would have said "We don't need George Washington and those minute men to defend us, we have British soldiers to defend us and don't need any gung-ho colonists to take care of us."
Yeah, history is filled with people such as yourself. Good thing we have "gung-ho" Republicans.
This is NOT just citizens, it many members of law enforcement and even members of the Virginia National Guard who are saying they will refuse orders to move on citizens. That makes it VERY serious.
Can you imagine how you could make a valid point if you actually read and understood the topic being discussed? I suggest you try it some time, you just may like it.
Please don't try to suppose for myself, Mike. You're seldom close to being correct. We have a country now unlike before the Revolution.
A well regulated militia was just about all we had at the time, Mike. That plus help from the French. I realize your ancestors were in Europe and had no part at all in forming this country, but mine were here and fighting. I suggest YOU do a little reading yourself and you may sound a bit more intelligent.
I suggest you read some more. Read a little more how the British came for the guns of the colonists.
"On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord, Massachusetts in order to seize an arms cache. Paul Revere and other riders sounded the alarm, and colonial militiamen began mobilizing to intercept the Redcoats. On April 19, local militiamen clashed with British soldiers in the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, marking the “shot heard round the world” that signified the start of the Revolutionary War. "
https://www.history.com/topics/american … on-history
As I said before, your attitude was the attitude of those who sympathized with the British. The colonists, like those in Virginia today, refused to give up their weapons. Militias are once again forming.
It doesn't matter if my ancestors weren't here in the beginning of the country. Your obvious lack of knowledge of the English language as well as American history does your ancestors a serious disservice.
iI'll put my knowledge of the English language against yours at any time, Mike. And because you claim something is obvious to you, tells much about yourself, Mike.
Do you really believe the private gun owners can repel a military force from another country? You've "obviously" watched Red Dawn a few too many times.
I was simply wondering Mike, do you belong to a well regulated militia? And if so, what entity regulates it?
I will say that if Northam makes the mistake of attempting to use the National Guard against law abiding citizens I'll drive to Virginia to stand in protest.
They don't bother to address gang violence or murder in the cities, homelessness or drug abuse but they want to force peaceful people to hand over firearms?
I don't see it happening.
The largest red flag I see here is over 92% of the counties in Virginia are not in favor of these proposed state laws. The government wants to use a heavy hand paid for by a citizen not of Virginia.
What happened to government for, by and of the people? It went away when democrats decided they don't care what anyone who doesn't agree with them thinks. It disappeared when democrats decided if they can't convince people they have a decent plan then they'll trash the constitution to get their way.
I think we are learning elected Democrats in Virginia don't view their position as representing ALL the people, only those who agree with them. Their dictatorial behavior will have a very bad ending should they challenge the will of the people in Virginia.
When you have so many members of law enforcement AND the National Guard willing to go against the government, it is a bad situation.
I don't see it that way. It seems, to me, more like what happened with Trump's election - the vast majority of counties in the country voted red, with small majority of people (in a tiny minority of counties) voting blue.
City dwellers are a different animal than their more rural cousins and this is but one more area the plainly shows that, with metropolitan populations much happier to give control to faceless bureaucrats rather than retain their freedoms and rights. And of course their responsibilities - as we give up our rights we also give up our responsibilities, making those same bureaucrats responsible instead of ourselves.
Cruised right past my question as usual, Mike. Too difficult I suppose?
I read your response to Mike. It was, as usual for you, void of an intelligent argument warranting a response.
In other words, neither of you want to answer truthfully. And I doubt you can explain why my question wasn't worthy of a response either.
Why don't you simply do like others of your bent and accuse me of hating Trump when you don't like the query?
It does make you wish there were state level electoral colleges. I know the founding fathers warned future generations about the "tyranny of the majority." That is why we are a representative republic.
"People often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic."
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c … e-majority
I think we would find that most states, in the construction of their legislature, have at least some attempt to protect the minority. They also commonly attempt to negate those efforts, but that's another story.
As I'm now in the minority, a rural dweller or at least of the rural political bent, it's easy to complain when I don't get my way because the populous areas override what is such obvious common sense. And it's easy to forget that we DO affect each other; cities affect what happens in the country (criminals and the homeless, drugs, etc. leave the city for easier pickings in the villages) and vice versa (country folk bring their guns to town as well as their quaint religious beliefs and old fashioned moral foundations). Nevertheless, if Chicago wants to ban all guns from their citizens, I'm OK with that. But it must end at the city limits and provisions must be made for visitors, for we ARE all one country.
Who the hell is "Snake Eyes" and why should anyone care what he/she/it opines, Mike?
Sorry Mike, I forget you don't like questions.
I checked out "Sanke Eyes" Randy, (no I didn't), and he is a he, and has a Masters in Political Science from Princeton. He has been a frequent advisor to past presidents and is widely acclaimed in academic circles for his philosophical insight on human societies.
However, I haven't checked out Mike. So you and your questions are on your own there.
Disclaimer: As a Georgia resident I am sure I don't have to tell you that was all BS. ;-)
I think the bigger question is "Who the hell is Randy Godwin and why don't people care what he/she/it opines?"
I never really expect you to answer any queries, Mike. But it's fun to make you evade them.
It's even more fun for me to laugh at them.
So, in addition to learning about the intricacies of the English language and studying some political science concerning the American judicial system, I suggest you also take a few lessons of world history. When you've done this there is a good chance you may actually ask a question worthy of a response.
You have some work to do, but I'm sure with the right amount of effort you can make it happen. It's up to you.
So if I study up really hard you'll know the answers then, Mike?
No..you'll still play the "too smart for you" game as Trump does. It doesn't work well for either of you.
Randy, the main problem is you don't appear to seek dialogue. You just seek to create discord. Your questions make no sense, unless viewed from the point of view that you really have no desire to do anything but try to make fun of any point you disagree with.
Randy, you missed the point again as usual.
If you study up really hard you won't have to ask the questions because you'll know the answers. The questions you do ask will result in a good dialogue and show you can do more than make snarky comments.
As I said, it doesn't work well for either you or your chosen role model, Mike.
I don't expect anything intellectual from you, never have. Your evasion is tiresome but humorous just the same. Just keep on entertaining us with the silly memes and comments you're known for.
I guess if you're comfortable just only being able to make snarky comments the so be it. You've made your choice.
Better than humorous opining, Mike. I'll make a wager with you my IQ is higher than yours, Mike. Lets start off at a thousand and you can raise it if you care to. Put your money where your mouth is...as we say down here.
Aww gee. The 'I'm smarter than you' argument? Now we know your position must be lame.
Have you not noticed Mike continues to claim I'm not intelligent enough to ask him questions? Where have you been the last few years? It's called, "callng one's bluff,"
It happens often down here when someone is acting arrogant as in, "put your money where your mouth is."
Keep reading and I'll educate you a bit more, Miz Helper.
Have you ever noticed Randy can't make a statement of any substance but continues to make snarky ridiculous comments? I believe it is his superpower.
It's kind of typical leftist. Angry, but can't articulate why.
What was the "snarky ridiculous comments I made, Mike?
Dammit.. I keep forgetting your phobia of questions!
Oh lordy, now we're at the "My . . . is bigger than your . . ." stage. Talk about pissing contests, geesh. What's next, yo momma' cracks?
Gus, more than once Mike has inferred I wasn't intellectual enough for him to answer my queries. If he said this to my face it would be a problem for him. But I've dealt with his ilk before on many prior occasions.
They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. I'm weary of his bull shit and calling him on it. If you want to get involved--as you're already making excuses for him--you can hold the money.
I cannot think of a more undecided person--notice I didn't say nonpartisan--to hold the money.
Simply read the previous comments by Mike in this thread and you'll see what I mean.
I have followed the comments Randy. And I will be as blunt as you are. The exchange has sounded like two kids in the schoolyard.
If you are tired of the BS and decide to "call him on it," then do so from a position of factual foundation. If your position is solid then all will see it and your opposing partner will be exposed, but to resort to your current exchange does nothing for your position. What does it matter if an opposing opinion won't admit it can't hold water when faced with proof? Generically speaking, isn't knowing you are right enough?
I don't know if my dick is bigger or my IQ is higher, but if that is what I have to resort to to feel victorious then I am definitely not at the top of my game in the conversation.
So, to restate my original observation, "I know you are but what am I?" Come on bud, you have more to offer than that.
Bu the way, Happy New Year. I hope yours is as beneficient as I hope mine is.
ps. I am still planning that Florida road trip and will definitely plan a route that takes me through your portion of Georgia for a visit. I will count on you for some rifle competition. I have my dad's iron sight 348 that practically sings to me every time I shoot it.
I know Mike is simply Trumping it, Gus. But you notice he hasn't responded when called on his bluff. If it simply causes him to deter his feelings of "superior intelligence", then perhaps it's for the best.
I don't try to debate by informing another person I'm too intelligent to answer questions put to me, and I expect others to do the same.
Let me know when you're coming down and we'll definitely do some shooting. I'll drag out my old Mosin Nagant--I think it's a 1915 model--and we'll play Sgt. York.
Happy New Year to you, Gus!
They don't care because they think they will be the ruling class once they strip us of our rights.
This didn't age well.
“Dealing with firearms, it is irrational, with all due respect to the governor of Texas, irrational what they are doing,” Biden told reporters on September 2. “On the very day you see a mass shooting … and we’re talking about loosening access to have guns, to be able to take them into places of worship, it’s just absolutely irrational. It’s totally irrational.” -Joe Biden
National Guardsman: "We will not comply" if ordered by Virginia governor to arrest police, confiscate guns”
"If you force local law enforcement to start violating peoples 2nd Amendment rights by taking their guns, you will wind up with temporary emergency due to an occupied territory.
There are people who will dig in. They will fortify their habitations. They will stand firm in their resolution to exercise their un-infringed right. And it will get ugly."
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/nat … cate-guns/
But it's not rare in Texas for this to occur, despite the guns.
But it IS rare in those other states...for a gunman to enter a crowded room and only shoot 2 others before he is stopped. Despite gun control and the lack of guns, mass murderers are much more effective where their targets are not armed.
While it is a no brainer that if we could remove even most guns from our citizenry there would not be so many bodies with bullet holes in them, it is also a no brainer that people willing and able to defend themselves will result in fewer bodies.
It is however, extremely rare to hear about people in the liberal states to have the ability to shoot back, which is unequivocally the most effective way to stop a mass shooting.
The only legislation that is effective in stopping mass shootings is the second amendment when not infringed upon by liberals.
Where do you draw the line as far as weapon ownship is concerned? Should we be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, handheld bazookas, suitcase nukes, or any other weapon you can hold in your hands? You decide...
Right where we are seems a good compromise.
Would you prefer we limit weapon ownership to BB guns and slingshots? About as reasonable a question as suitcase nukes and bazookas, wouldn't you say?
I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment, Dan. But I don't like magazines which hold a 100 rounds or more. I believe a tough fine for possession could limit some of the mass shootings. Not totally, but some.
I couldn't care less if 100+ round magazines are made illegal. IF, of course, we can enforce it, which seems unlikely.
But limit some of the mass shootings? I doubt it. I don't recall any of those shooters using 100+ round magazines. I also don't see where forcing a madman to swap magazines a few times rather than keep pulling the trigger is going to do much.
And, of course, there is always the bomb, or chemicals, waiting if we force a choice other than guns - both can be far more deadly than any single gun.
Changing a mag takes time, and under pressure it allows the shooter to be vulnerable to being shot or ttcked in some manner.
I wasn't only talking about 100 round mags, but also those with 30 or more rounds. The Las Vegas shooter used high capacity mags if I'm not mistaken.
I do think a stiff penalty--ten years or more mandatory--would make people think twice before owning one.
A mandatory 10-year mandatory sentence for having a high-capacity magazine? Damn. I don't support any mandatory sentencing, that's what judges are for, but 10 years for a capacity violation sounds harsh. You're a hard man Randy.
It once was more than this for possessing a joint, Gus. Don't you think it would deter possession of a high capacity mag?
No I don't. That draconian mandatory sentences didn't stop folks from possessing a joint might be the proof of the pudding, as they say.
You think a stiff penalty would deter a person planning to murder a mass of people and then die? I doubt it.
Don't know about the Vegas shooter, but am hearing that the Texas one did not have a high capacity magazine (no help there, then) but it WAS illegal for him to own a gun. Meaning prison time if he was caught...but he had one anyway. Gun controls do very little to control whether murderers own a gun - a very simple fact that is shunted aside in favor of disarming America.
No law will deter every crazy person, but it will some sane folks who care about their freedom.
Yes it will. The sane ones that will never murder anyone at all.
Which is what I said - trying to take weapons from a crazy mass murderer is futile. The only result from such efforts will be to disarm that part of the public that will never cause harm anyway. Which is what we see from history - grab the guns and the death toll continues right on it's merry way without significant change.
But hey - the politicians will have bought some more votes from frightened people unable to understand how things work, and that's far more important that saving lives!
Have you ever saved a life with your firearms, Dan? If so, did you need an assault weapon to do so? I grab my shotgun if there's danger afoot. Let them come at me with an assault weapon if they feel lucky.
Let's see. An "assault weapon". As in a 50 cal machine gun.
I'll take that over your shotgun, at 200 yards, every time.
But none of that has anything at all to do with any comment I made. Was there a reason you didn't respond, instead starting a new topic about how a gun should be "needed", in your opinion, before someone can own one?
(I don't own a firearm so can't save lives with one.)
I suspected you didn't own a firearm Dan, but then you apparently don't "need" one to hunt or as home protection. Bring your 50 caliber machine gun on. I'll wait until the assault.
No, I don't need a gun. Which has zero to do with whether I should be able to own one. Or do you believe it is your assessment of need that determines that?
If one lives in a low crime area and opts to not have a firearm then I have no problem with it at all. It's a person's personal choice. My dad came back from WWII and din't own a firearm for another 30 years. He had to borrow a shotgun to shoot the squirrels eating the pecans on the farm.
Of course, we didn't lock the doors in those days either--didn't have locks--even when we were away a week at a time. These days there's simply to many burglaries and home protection is a must.
by ga anderson 5 years ago
Attorney General Sessions has announced that sanctuary cities will be denied certain Federal grant's monies due to their non-compliance with federal laws* regarding illegal immigrants.I think it is only right that sanctuary cities lose their eligibility for such Federal grants when they decided to...
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
It is obvious Democrats value illegal immigrants over American citizens and legal immigrants. Why? Why are illegal immigrants so important to the Democrat party they are willing to ignore American citizens and the crime from illegal immigration?Law-abiding citizens have become victims...
by flacoinohio 9 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
This crisis is a creation of Democrats who refuse to fund the wall and refuse to enforce our immigration laws. In addition, they refuse to deal with the rising numbers of people showing up at our borders. Our antiquated laws force the government and ICE to release these people...Our courts are...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
Mayor Ed Murray of Seattle is defying the Trump administration action over sactuary cities and going to the courts.Trump administration wants to withhold federal funds to cities that defy ICE compliance.What do you think? Does he have any legal ground to speak of?What are your views on sancuary...
by Dan Harmon 23 months ago
It seems that Portland, Or, has finally figured out how to stop this - "defund" the police, cutting the force necessary to control such things and then refuse the designate a riot for what it is because they no longer have the force necessary to address...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|