Ebbin and his fellow Democrats simply want to feel safe, and that means endangering the safety of everyone they happen to disagree with that will come for the protest in February. After all, it’s funny how only the side he disagrees with will be impacted, despite the complete lack of violence.
Then again, sticking it to your enemies is an age-old political tactic.
December 27, 2019
VA Democrats Want To Ban Carrying Gun In State Capitol Grounds
[Such activities must not go unanswered. Otherwise they will continue to encroach upon our rights.
The gun rights side of the political aisle need to have a good way of “sticking it to their enemies” and play a game of tit for tat. I’m inclined to suggest prosecution and imprisonment but we aren’t there yet.—Joe]
Joe, you write:
“I’m inclined to suggest prosecution and imprisonment but we aren’t there yet.”
Seriously, if not now, when? What is your tripline? Or is it a matter of needing to elect DAs who will actually prefer charges against their elected colleagues?
It’s because I don’t think any prosecutor would take it seriously at this point. They might change their minds if there were angry mobs at their offices, but again, we don’t seem to be there yet.
I can’t help but think that angry mobs at the prosecutors’ offices will only convince the prosecutors to outlaw and prosecute angry mobs. But maybe I’m overly cynical this morning.
Do you have a better suggestion?
Hemp. And scaffolds.
I understand the appeal but some of the side effects are concerning.
I’m still cynical tonight. Count me with Carl.
It seems to me any direct confrontation will not help at this point in time.
That’s the beauty and beast of the sanctuary movement. It says that you will not enforce unacceptable mandates and laws – it’s inaction, it’s not doing something, and it’s not a [direct] threat. And just as important it is already being used by the left without any consequences.
The sanctuary movement also changes the nature of the confrontations. Individual confrontations with the state are one-sided while confrontations between state entities are two-sided.
And, just perhaps, it offers a way forward without major conflict. We could also call it the separation movement.
What wil be fun is watching the court cases which arise from the VA gun “sanctuary” movement. If they prosecute, they lay the groundwork for prosecuting all the liberal big city pols who made great claims of being “sanctuaries” from immigration laws. Goose, meet gander. Should be fun watching the rhetorical tap-dancing, especially when multiple-time-deportees are convicted of murder.
And it’s not just sanctuaries. The EPA has lowered emissions standards and CA along with 13 other states are refusing to lower their standards.
Yes, they can go to the courts, which will be fun to watch, but I’m thinking that there is little motivation for the feds or states to pursue these cases. Furthermore, since cities, counties, and states have already decided to not enforce the law why would they follow a court order.
In a different era, Eisenhower sent the 101 airborne into Arkansas in 1957 to enforce desegregation because the Governer refused to comply. It’s possible that such action could be taken again, but I have heard little to suggest that kind of action is on the table today.
And yes there is an ugly side of a separation movement whatever form it takes.
Rolf, sorry but the goose and gander argument was lost along time ago.
It’s like Nancy Pelosi holding off for a fair trial? Go figure.
Sanctuary cities are already illegal under 8USC,1324. Aiding and abiding an illegal alien is a federal felony. 15 years worth. Think anyone is going to jail for doing it soon?
They decide where the law gets applied. And were the only criminals they want to see. Silenced. Dead. Standard commie S.O.P.
Would it surprise you to know that a lack of violent reaction to cultural and government changes is exactly what the Leftists are planning on? At least until they are confident in their control. I was referred to the link below and found it exceptionally interesting and quite scary given what is going on in the country today. The Preface to the document gives you a clear and easily read documentation of history (from the early 1950s) and comparison to today. Having read the full document, I personally am left with more questions than answers as to what can effectively be done. I don’t see any possibility that the trials which Joe and many of us believe should take place will ever happen. The opposite seems more likely.