Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Virginia Election Fallout: Dems “Cave” On Confiscation, Submit Mandatory Gun Registration As Compromise

Virginia Election Fallout: Dems “Cave” On Confiscation, Submit Mandatory Gun Registration As Compromise

When a “cave” is just part of the gun-grabbing strategy

https://twitter.com/GovernorVA/status/1091510484468146176

Last month, I blogged about the Virginia Election Fallout: Gov. Northam “Working On” Assault Weapon Confiscation.

Since then, the pushback in Virginia has been immense, with entire cities and towns declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and one Virginia sheriff promising to deputize thousands of residents in an entire county to ensure that their #2A rights are not violated.

In a move many see as cynical, Virginia Democrats have reportedly “caved” on their gun confiscation plans.  Having started out in crazy land, they seem to imagine that positing a gun registration requirement for all Virginians is a workable “compromise.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Virginia Democratic leaders abandoned their gun confiscation proposal Monday following a grassroots outpouring of opposition to gun control across the state.

Governor Ralph Northam (D.) and incoming Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw (D.) said they will no longer pursue their marquee plan to ban the possession of “assault weapons.” Instead, they will include a provision to allow Virginians to keep the firearms they already own. The reversal comes before the newly elected Democratic majority has even been sworn in, after a majority of the state’s counties declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky told the Virginia Mercury.

Overton window alert!

Apparently, Virginia Democrats believe that appearing to “cave” on actual confiscation in light of the reported 59 sanctuaries already in the state will soften Virginians on a mandatory gun registry.

Not so fast.

The Washington Free Beacon continues:

Gun-rights groups said the backtracking is merely a political strategy designed to enact new gun bans and registration.

“Gov. Northam and the rest of Virginia’s anti-gun politicians’ idea of a compromise is to threaten hundreds of thousands of Virginians with felonies unless they submit to government control,” Catherine Mortensen, a National Rifle Association spokesperson, told the Free Beacon. “The NRA will stand with the Commonwealth’s law-abiding gun owners in solidarity to oppose gun bans, confiscations, and registrations.”

“We’ve been down this compromise road and their version of a compromise is they never give up anything,” Van Cleave said. “We are expected to give up something every time and we’re not doing it anymore. I think gun owners are tired of this and they’re gonna stand up and fight this stuff.”

Democrats want to make felons of millions of law-abiding gun owners across the nation, and if Northam’s “deal” is permitted, they will have their template.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Hey, they voted for them, I have very little sympathy.

    As is usually the case, the urban lefties voted for them, not the rural conservatives. When I lived in Massachusetts, I knew many conservatives who loathed what Dems were doing, not just nationally but in their own state (or Commonwealth, in this case). The problem is that the left has a lock on densely-populated urban areas, so the “leftie” part of Mass, as an example, is limited to the Boston metro area, the Berkshires, and the Cape. The rest are all normal Americans just like you and me. Their vote just doesn’t “count.”

      johnnycab23513 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 11, 2019 at 7:48 pm

      A d fraud was rampant! This was another dry run to hit the right combination of dead, illegals, and out of state voters to win without creating much suspicion for the 2020 Presidential election!

      amatuerwrangler in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 11, 2019 at 8:35 pm

      That’s essentially the model in California. Urban coastal commies and once you get into the central valley (with the exception of Sacramento) and on east you see a different population.

        I know. It’s the same in NY state, too. I wish people would stop with the crazy; no, not all people in these blue state disaster zones are on board with the leftie lunacy. There’s a reason the Founders didn’t want majority/mob rule . . . and there’s a reason (the same one in reverse) that Dems do want it.

          And it’s all the fault of the Supreme Court when they decided states couldn’t be organized the same way as the federal government with an upper chamber representing counties and a lower chamber roughly equal populations by district. Yep, those people who wrote and had input into writing the federal constitution who were also pretty much the same people who wrote and input into writing the state constitutions that organized the state the same way were just too stupid and uneducated to understand that that federal constitution they just wrote had invisible ink between the lines and penumbras and emanations that said “one man one vote” and that therefore states COULDN’T be organized the same way because it violated the Constitution.

          Shortly thereafter is when state budgets started ballooning. The Warren Court of 1964 was much smarter than those ignorant hicks back in the 1700s and were able to see how unfair it was for rural counties to have some say in how the states were governed.

          And it’s all the fault of the Supreme Court when they decided states couldn’t be organized the same way as the federal government with an upper chamber representing counties and a lower chamber roughly equal populations by district.

          The Supreme Court was 100% right; unless the counties have roughly equal populations, such an arrangement is brazenly, contemptuously unconstitutional. It spits in the face of the 14th amendment as well as the requirement for a republican form of government.

          Yep, those people who wrote and had input into writing the federal constitution who were also pretty much the same people who wrote and input into writing the state constitutions that organized the state the same way

          1. Such as? Which states in the late 18th century were organized such a way?

          2. In any case, the 14th amendment was passed 80 years later, so nothing done in the 18th century is relevant.

          You cannot deliberately create rotten boroughs and call yourself a democracy. Or a republic.

          And as the Supreme Court pointed out, the USA’s structure is very different, because it is a federation of states. It was created by the states, it did not create them. Whereas a state is not a federation of the districts into which it chooses to divide itself; it creates those districts at will, and can abolish or alter them at will, so it can’t use them as an excuse to subvert democracy, let alone for the blatantly racial reasons that motivated the defendant states in the Supreme Court case.

          PS: The real damage was done when the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and outlawed common-sense reasonable restrictions on the franchise, such as literacy tests. Not just the grotesque pretend tests that were used in the South as an excuse to disenfranchise black people; those were never legal and could have been stamped out simply by tough enforcement of the existing law. Instead Congress’s response was to ban the tests altogether, even when administered completely honestly, fairly, and in good faith.

          The 24th amendment was also a big mistake. Again, the abuse it addressed was real, but rather than address the abuse it tore down a legitimate means of restricting the franchise to those who have a stake in conserving the public fisc. “No taxation without representation” ought to imply “No representation without taxation”.

          14th amendment sections 2 is virtually identical to the provisions of the Constitution before the 14th was ratified.

          Article 1 Section 2 para 3:3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

          Article 14 section 2:2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,15 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

          Sections 1,3, and 4 of the 14th amendment have zip diddly to do with the subject at all.

          You’re talking out your ass.

          The United States is a REPUBLIC, with a REPUBLICAN form of government, with an upper house that is not representative of the population and a lower house that is, except it’s currently and unconstitutionally too small because 435 representatives leads to larger states being NOT PROPORTIONALLY represented as required by both the original and as amended by the 14th amendment constitution.

          To say that states organized in the same manner as the federal republic are not republics themselves is disingenuous, or a lie. whichever description you prefer. There was a recognition in the early organization of the states that cities would be able to impose laws on rural areas in the same manner that larger states would be able to impose their will on smaller states unless there were two separate houses of the legislature organized differently. The upper house now in most states is simply an smaller image of the lower house with different term limits and higher pay. Rarely is there major disagreement between the two.

          No, you idiot. The clauses you cited are about the House of Reps, and have nothing to do with state constitutions. But somehow you missed the equal protection clause.

          The USA is allowed to have a senate in which all states are equally represented, because it is a federation of the states, a creature of the states, and that is the basis on which they joined together. It is the United States. And the deal when it was created was that one house would represent the people and the other the states (i.e., of course, the people of the states, since what is a state but its people?).

          If the states were merely subdivisions of the USA, which it creates, alters, or abolishes at will, then a republican form of government as well as the 14th amendment would require it to make them equal in population, and to regularly redraw them to keep them so, or else to get rid of their equal representation in the senate.

          This is the equal protectiion clause: Article XIV (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
          1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Yep, clear as mud that right there in the words it demolishes the upper houses of state legislatures making the upper houses and lower houses mirrors of each other.

          NO IT DOESN’T! It has to be twisted to say that. It was ratified in 1868 – by states with two houses where in general the upper house represented counties or other subdivisions and the lower house was allocated by approximately equal size districts. And then, suddenly, it was discovered a century later by the Warren Court that all those states had unwittingly made their legislatures UNCONSTITUTIONAL! But they were too stupid to realize it; it took the the unparalleled genius of the Warren Court justices to see it.

          Having states with upper house membership determined by existing political subdivisions does not in any way deprive any person of equal protection of the laws. In fact – it protects the rights of rural residents which we now see being stripped away by liberal legislatures dominated by cities. The decision was boneheaded, like many of the other decisions that came out of the Warren Court.

          The Supreme Court has made a lot of boneheaded decision over the years, and that was one of them. Basically, those of us living in rural counties in NY State have no say at all in how the state is governed because of that boneheaded decision.

          dambuster in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 13, 2019 at 8:23 am

          It is the “Overton Window” approach….then propose 2 steps forward…the one backward…and as readers here know….refgistration is a solid first step to confiscation….

          . It was ratified in 1868 – by states with two houses where in general the upper house represented counties or other subdivisions and the lower house was allocated by approximately equal size districts.

          Why don’t you name some states in which upper house districts were not roughly equal in population?

          Having states with upper house membership determined by existing political subdivisions

          There are no “existing” political subdivisions of states. All subdivisions are creatures of the state itself. It is entitled to do so, but not so as to make some voters’ votes worth significantly more than those of others.

          Basically, those of us living in rural counties in NY State have no say at all in how the state is governed because of that boneheaded decision.

          You have all the say you are morally and constitutionally entitled to.

        TrickyRicky in reply to amatuerwrangler. | December 11, 2019 at 11:25 pm

        Colorado is now ruled by the Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins axis of evil.

          Lewfarge in reply to TrickyRicky. | December 12, 2019 at 2:04 am

          Yes we are – There are a number of states that suffer a similar problem. What has happened here is exactly what the Electoral College prevents on a national level.
          Wish we could have a STATE form of the same thing !
          ( posted from WEST of the Divide )

          Milhouse in reply to TrickyRicky. | December 13, 2019 at 12:08 am

          You do. It’s called the state legislature. The Dems can’t and didn’t take the legislature simply by getting a majority of the statewide vote, they had to do it, and did it, by getting majorities in many different districts, just as 0bama became president by getting majorities in many different states.

      tom_swift in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 11, 2019 at 8:49 pm

      so the “leftie” part of Mass, as an example, is limited to the Boston metro area, the Berkshires, and the Cape.

      I grew up on the Cape. Average age out there was relatively old, and the codgers were unimpressed by young whippersnappers telling them what to do. Even the old grannies had guns. We didn’t wave them around, but we had them.

      Violent crime was essentially unknown.

      sestamibi in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 11, 2019 at 9:34 pm

      Yeah, if only that were still true. As of 2018, the six New England states combined send NOT ONE Rep

        This, I have long maintained, is likely due to the fact that a LOT Of Democrats haven’t been paying attention as their party shifted further and further left. During the Scott Brown campaign, I talked to a LOT of Mass voters, and Democrats who supported Brown were often still under the impression that their party was still the anti-commie, pro-business party of JFK. It’s hard to change minds in this case because they grew up in families that were generations of patriotic Democrats who haven’t noticed that “patriotism” is a bad thing now in that party.

        It also doesn’t help that Republicans have yet to find a way to combat the Democrat lies about the GOP being the party of racism and throwing grandma off the cliff and selfish solipsism (all things, by the way that best describe today’s Democrats). A lot of “normal” people in Mass really do believe that garbage, and it’s hard to show that’s untrue.

        But I do think it’s worth noting that Mass did send Brown to the Senate specifically on his promise to stop ObamaCare as the 41st vote. That was HUGE, and it was hard because it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” Granted, Reid’s invocation of the “Reid rule” undermined our efforts, but we didn’t know at the time that he would change the Senate rules if we broke their supermajority.

        Also, Mass embraced the Tea Party and there were a lot of Tea Party groups throughout the state that were active and very vocal. I was actually pretty surprised by that, but it was very heartening, particularly when it came to the Brown campaign.

          But I do think it’s worth noting that Mass did send Brown to the Senate specifically on his promise to stop ObamaCare as the 41st vote. That was HUGE, and it was hard because it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” Granted, Reid’s invocation of the “Reid rule” undermined our efforts, but we didn’t know at the time that he would change the Senate rules if we broke their supermajority.

          What do you mean by this? Reid didn’t change any rules for 0bamacare. Once the Dems lost their 60th seat they could no longer pass the 0bamacare amendments they needed to make it make sense, and had counted on passing, which is why it ended up so broken. They could only pass what they could put into a budget reconciliation resolution, and most of the amendments they needed couldn’t be made to fit.

          What I mean is exactly what you said, Milhouse. The ObamaCare monstrosity was intended to be passed in toto; because Brown broke the Democrat supermajority, they had to “deem” parts viable via reconciliation, and they had to NOT pass parts that required a supermajority (i.e. non-budgetary items that Reid wasn’t ready to change Senate rules to pass). The “deem and pass” (or “demon pass” as it became known on the right) was a finagle. Or are you suggesting that it wasn’t?

          Reid’s fudging the bill by “demon passing” parts of it (those that he could wrangle) and unable to pass other parts due to lack of votes was a main reason it ended up with the Supremes. You know this. Right?

          Sometimes I wonder if you argue with people just to hear yourself. Try relaxing a bit, maybe with a good movie and glass of wine?

          The “deem and pass” (or “demon pass” as it became known on the right) was a finagle. Or are you suggesting that it wasn’t?

          “Deem and pass” was in the House, not the Senate. It had nothing to do with Reid. Instead of actually passing the bill, the Rules Committee adopted a rule that it should be deemed to have passed. The House voted on that rule and passed it, and in so doing passed the bill. Presumably because doing it the normal way would have lost too many Dem members.

        In NH, we continually manage to nominate RINO’s as the Republican Nominees for House and Senate. Latest example, Kelly Ayotte. She tried to be a John McCain acolyte, and lost the conservative base. Maggie Hassan won by 1000 votes while there were 8000 out of state students voting – that’s also how HRC won the Presidential.

        Scott Brown came up here as a carpetbagger, won the nomination, and let Jeanne Shaheen wipe the floor with him. Such a moron. Fine for MA, but not NH.

        If the RINO establishment/big government party would get out of the way, we would start winning more. Just like VA.

      There’s also the population shift to the DC area, as well as the Democrat, judicially-enabled gerrymandering that took place. (The judges made the state use a Democrat-controlled process to re-gerrymander the un-gerrymandering they did by striking down the legitimate Republican re-districting in 2013.)

      iconotastic in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 11, 2019 at 10:19 pm

      Thank the Supreme Court for that dysfunctional situation. The Court decided that, despite Congressional approval of state constitutions and more than 80 years of Court decisions that the bicameral model of government used at the federal level was magically unconstitutional at the state level.

      I can’t help but wonder if the Court lefties would like to use the same 14th Amendment excuse to eliminate the state representation in the Senate and eliminate the Electoral College.

        Milhouse in reply to iconotastic. | December 11, 2019 at 11:43 pm

        BS. And no, they can’t.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2019 at 12:10 am

          My experience is that a court may rule in any way it desires. This is why we have appeals and why we are a republic, rather than a secular theocracy ruled by unelected men in robes.

          Old joke:
          (Q) What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 75?
          (A) “Your Honor”

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2019 at 12:05 am

          You contradict yourself. If they’re going the route of outright rejecting the constitution because they feel like it, then they don’t need to make any excuses or arguments based on the 14th or any other amendment. They can just abolish the electoral college, or elections altogether, because they want to. If they’re making constitutional arguments it’s because the judiciary is still at least somewhat faithful to the constitution, and needs to be persuaded. And such a judiciary cannot find that the 14th amendment abolished state representation in the Senate or the Electoral College. Especially not the first, since even an amendment can’t do that without the consent of the affected states.

      Milwaukee in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 12, 2019 at 2:18 am

      Fuzzy.
      Before the Warren Court states bicameral legislatures with one chamber based on population and the other based on area or regions. Sort of like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Somehow the Court found that unconstitutional. Notice, also the state senates elected the state Senators.

      The 25 longest serving Senators have all been since direct popular vote election. State senates were a tough crowd and turn over was high.

        Milhouse in reply to Milwaukee. | December 12, 2019 at 11:04 pm

        Before the Warren court means shortly before. This was a ploy Southern states used for the purpose of disenfranchising black urban voters. And it was brazenly unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court correctly pointed out, and as is very obvious, a state upper house based on subdivisions that the state itself decided to create is very different from the US senate, which represents the states that constitute the union. If a state wishes to create subdivisions within itself, and give them equal representation, they must have equal populations, just like the divisions that are represented in the lower house.

        Notice, also the state senates elected the state Senators.

        This is not true. Until 1913 (long before the Warren Court!) US senators were elected by their states’ legislatures, not their states’ senates. (States aren’t even required to have senates, and Nebraska doesn’t.) If the state had two houses and they didn’t both elect the same person, the seat remained empty until they could agree on someone.

        And this was not changed by any court but by the states themselves amending the constitution. Because the state legislatures had effectively been turned into mere electoral colleges for the senate. People were voting for state legislators based entirely on whom they said they’d support for US senator, just as nowadays we vote for electors based entirely on how they’ve pledged to vote. All issues of state law were subordinated to this one issue.

        State senates were a tough crowd and turn over was high

        They weren’t a tough crowd, but some were a greedy crowd; they demanded bribes to support someone for senator.

      Spot on Fuzzy. I live on Cape Ann.

    MrSatyre in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 11, 2019 at 8:55 pm

    Please remove your empty brain box from your digestive tract.

In NY that didn’t work. They ignored the law.

They need to call the same places “Sanctuaries for ‘Undocumented’ firearms”.

Maybe the blackface gov. can show me where in the Constitution it says “shall register”? I remember the part that says “Shall not be infringed”.
Webster’s Definition of infringe
transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Yeah, registration is just prelude to confiscation. This is a slow walk to the desired outcome instead of a rush. 20th C history shows that.

Keep fighting Virginia.

And sympathy or not, it needs to be defeated everywhere. A free nation depends on an armed citizenry. We can’t let states be disarmed one at a time.

It was true more than 250 years ago, it’s true today.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg

    I Was about to point this out. Confiscation is virtually impossible without prior registration so the government knows who has weapons. Otherwise “confiscation” is “voluntary surrender”.

I’ll see your “gun registration” and raise you a “suck my dick”

A call-out to all criminals white, brown, yellow, and black-faced. Register your arms, legs, head, and life, too.

Subotai Bahadur | December 11, 2019 at 8:48 pm

Making the increasingly shaky assumption that we actually have elections in 2020, the only rational choice Virginians have is to vote every Democrat they can out of office.

Subotai Bahadur

    PrincetonAl in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 11, 2019 at 8:57 pm

    Unfortunate, but true. They will shift focus from passing gun control legislation to permanently fixing the elections pretty quickly.

    The immediate “benefits” of being a Democrat voter outweighs the long term detriments … and if that happens…they believe they will get more benefits to outweigh the detriments.

    The most unstable of locales are large urban areas. The potential for major mayhem is always there. Most urbanites have no clue what a disrupted society will look like. There are not enough police or military to protect everyone and usually the only areas protected are governmental leaving private citizens to their own protection …which in gun free areas is totally back to the rule of the jungle.

    iconotastic in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 11, 2019 at 10:22 pm

    There will always be elections. Venezuela has elections. Iran has elections. California has elections.

https://www.vcdl.org/join-VCDL
Not limited to just Virginians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9vpC7cygXQ&app=desktop

From the comments:

“The only reason after 243 years that the Government now wants to disarm you , is they intend to do something you would shoot them for.”
(author unknown)

    Sanddog in reply to 4fun. | December 11, 2019 at 10:13 pm

    That’s a good point. Gun grabbing politicians should all be asked what it is they’re planning on doing that first requires us to be disarmed.

    GWB in reply to 4fun. | December 11, 2019 at 10:44 pm

    “The only reason after 243 years that the Government now wants to disarm you , is they intend to do something you would shoot them for.”
    QFT

    kat100 in reply to 4fun. | December 12, 2019 at 1:11 am

    The Democrats are already at that juncture of doing “something”.

This move isn’t a cave so much as it is an incremental step that will allow future a confiscation to be more effective.

with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period
Yeah, that ain’t gonna happen. It didn’t go over well in Connecticut or Massachusetts, and there’s a LOT more freedom-lovers here than there.

My favorite is the sheriff who said “I’ll just deputize everyone.” Because that actually goes back to the heart of our freedoms – that we’re ALL citizens responsible for the day-to-day policing of our communities and the protection of our rights.

Compliance rates will be in the single digits.

Last legislative session, my state passed a universal background check over the opposition of most of the state’s firearms owners(we have a high rate of firearms ownership). As a result, 30, out of 33 sheriffs signed a statement refusing to enforce new gun control legislation and 26 of 33 counties declared themselves 2nd amendment sanctuaries. The Governor’s response was to attack the Sheriffs because apparently, she doesn’t understand math. The majority of the legislature, however, can’t be elected by only 3 counties in the state and they backed off everything but the UBC bill. In the spirit of disclosure, let me admit I am a FFL in New Mexico. I have done exactly ONE private sale transfer since the law went into effect July 1st. Other dealers have confirmed the lack of compliance as well. Not only that but firearms owners are openly bragging about ignoring the law.

So, pass all the laws you want. Enforcing compliance is a whole different story.

When you pass laws that not only are un-constitutional, but literally can NOT be enforced, you make the law a mockery, and turn your populace into villains. Once they are villains, there is little incentive to obey ANY law or follow any former legal bindings. And there is nothing now to stop them from overthrowing you, except sheer force.

If you make the mistake of not getting their guns before that point, you are in deep doo-doo.

Seems that “Molon Labe” fits in this context.

In the past the right has seen angry liberals. It may be that the combination of gun control and impeachment has, at last, produced angry conservatives.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/fake_moderate_virginia_democrat_abigail_spanberger_feels_the_heat_from_fedup_impeachmentweary_constituents.html

The first signs of trouble ahead for newly elected so-called moderate representatives in swing districts are being felt here in Virginia’s 7th District.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger hopped on the moderate train in 2018, touting her CIA background ad nauseam to the people of the traditionally Republican 7th District. With the help of millions of dollars from pro-abortion PACs and Soros-funded outfits, volunteers from Northern Virginia spread out over the western and southwestern suburbs of Richmond to give her a slim margin of victory over Republican Dave Brat. But Spanberger’s cover as an across-the-aisle moderate is not holding up well under the pressure of an impeachment hoax and a newly elected majority-Democrat Legislature.

Up until this past weekend, Spanberger’s numerous town halls have been generally peaceful Q&As. That all changed during Sunday’s gathering at a middle school gym in Spotsylvania County.

The mask is slipping, and the lady is no moderate. In one exchange with a member of the audience, Spanberger, the CIA officer, apparently didn’t understand that here in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty.

“No one has dispelled or attempted to dispel or provide evidence that would exonerate the president,” she said.

“Did you really say that? You have to prove you’re innocent?” someone else responded.

https://youtu.be/YskP0WRZd38

This might be a good time to challenge the authority of the States to modify or restrict the rights we have in the US Constitution which should be the same throughout the country

    Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | December 12, 2019 at 11:43 pm

    Yes, but registration is probably not an infringement of those rights. We’re against it for very good reasons, but I don’t think even courts that take the 2A very seriously are likely to strike it down.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2019 at 1:41 am

      Of course it is an infringement.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 13, 2019 at 1:36 pm

        Really? In what way? How does a requirement to register your gun prevent you from having one, assuming you’re actually entitled to do so? We oppose registration not because it infringes the RKBA but because we know where it will lead.

    VaGentleman in reply to Rusty Bill. | December 12, 2019 at 9:21 am

    When a gun grabber offers a compromise it means they will give up something they don’t have and you will give up something you do have. They don’t have a ban. They will trade asking for what they want if you give up what you already have (unregistered guns). Afterwards, for you to undo the deal, you have to change the law. For them to undo the deal, all they have to do is ask for a ban. After the ‘compromise’ the ball has moved in their favor and it’s first and 10 again.

      Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | December 12, 2019 at 11:46 pm

      Yes, this is it exactly.

      There are plenty of compromises that could be made, if the other side were negotiating in good faith, but they aren’t. So we should give no ground whatsoever, not even the most trivial; any time they propose something, no matter how reasonable it sounds, the first thing we should ask is “what do we get out of it?”. We should only make concessions when they do — real concessions, as in we get back something we’d already lost.

“Having started out in crazy land, they seem to imagine that positing a gun registration requirement for all Virginians is a workable “compromise.”

Democrat idea of a “compromise”: “We won’t hang you. No, we’ll compromise and just chop off your arms and legs.”

This is no win. Creating a gun registry, it merely sets the stage for Phase 2.

Once they take your guns, then they take your freedom of speech. Once those are gone, they can take you. There’s a reason they don’t teach history anymore.

Each state needs an electoral college to keep the libtard enclaves from ruining the entire state.

    Milhouse in reply to Demoncrats. | December 13, 2019 at 12:01 am

    They have one. It’s called the state legislature. It fulfills the same function as the electoral college — a party with 90% of the vote in a third of the seats and only 45% in the rest will get only a third of the seats. To get a majority it has to be able to win seats all over the state. Which is the main function of the electoral college as it works now.

I live in North East Tn. Virginia is 3 minutes away from me.

There will be no confiscation or registration.

The liberals imported a bunch of immigrants to change the demographics up in fairfax county and now think they have a mandate.
72 out of 95 counties have vowed 2nd amendment sanctuary…

Liberals threatened to use force to confiscate..rural areas just smiledand loaded their rifles.
There will be no confiscation nor will there be any registration in virginia.

There will be no confiscation nor will there be any registration in virginia.
_____________________________________________________

not much you can do re registration when you purchase from an ffl dealer–confiscation, though, a completely different matter–have two sheriff’s deputies for neighbors–each within a couple miles or so–have known them for years–they’ll not be confiscating any weapons from otherwise law-abiding citizens–period

treated myself to a couple of new ARs today–after all, it is close to christmas

molon labe

If the registration bill passes, it’ll be another embarrassment for the anti-gun crowd when only a tiny percentage of owners register, as has happened in NY and CT.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend