Voting

Does Virginia's Governor Mean It About Restoring Rights for Felons?

Will they be able to exercise their right to own a gun again, or just to vote for their leaders?

|

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) took a well-earned victory lap last week. Republicans have been having not just a cow but an entire herd of cattle over his executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 felons. To hear the GOP tell it, every last one of them is a psychotic, ax-murdering rapist. Yet last week, the McAuliffe administration released data showing that those affected by the order were, in the words of its press release, "overwhelmingly nonviolent." Only 21 percent had been convicted of a violent offense, and the average offender had completed his sentence more than a decade ago.

Thursday evening McAuliffe spoke—you could almost say preached—to a black church, terming the day he signed the order his "greatest day as governor." Recalling the racist history of black disenfranchisement, of which barring felons from the polls was a part, the governor said restoring voting rights was "morally the right thing to do." He repeated the point again a couple of minutes later: "This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with justice. This has to do with morality. These people have served their time and done their probation or done their parole. They are free in society… Why should they not have access to our ballot?"

That's true—except perhaps for the part about politics. People can have more than one reason for doing something. Figures from other states show ex-cons generally register as Democrats by lopsided margins. McAuliffe, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton, is as politically astute as they come. 

Political acumen also might explain why McAuliffe restored felons' rights to run for public office, serve on juries, and act as notaries public—but didn't even try to restore their right to own guns. In fact, his executive order singled out that right for categorical exemption: "Nothing in this Order restores the right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

Letting felons own guns is a provocative, even alarming idea at first blush. But the exemption directly contradicts everything he and his supporters have been saying: Ex-cons "deserve the right to be fully reintegrated into society," as another Virginia newspaper columnist put it over the weekend. "Fully" is not a synonym for "partly."

And as the governor's own figures show, four out of five felons affected were not violent to begin with—so there is no reason to think they would be violent in the future. In any event, McAuliffe says he doesn't care whether they were violent or not. "I'll be honest with you," he said at the 31st Street Baptist Church. "That doesn't mean a whit to me." Restoring voting rights, he said, is "the right thing to do once you've paid your debt to society. . . . You have paid the price. You are done with the legal system. You are back in society."

Granted, certain complexities of both state and federal law might make restoring gun rights slightly more involved than restoring voting rights. Virginians who have had other civil rights restored have to petition a court for restoration of their gun rights. But McAuliffe is rarely one to let technicalities get in the way of doing what he wants (witness the recent grant to Norfolk Southern to move some jobs across the state).

Besides, at 31st Street Baptist the governor said that when he decided to restore voting rights he told his staff, "No more excuses. I want you to get the best legal minds you can get in here. If there is a way to do this, I will do this." Yet when it comes to gun rights, a spokesman says, the governor is satisfied with current law. Why?

As noted in this column a couple of weeks ago, the ban on felon gun ownership disproportionately affects African-Americans, and to exactly the same degree as the ban on voting rights does. Like the denial of voting rights, denying gun rights to blacks has a long and sordidly racist history too. Every reason the governor has given for restoring voting rights applies with equal force to restoring gun rights. So why didn't he?

Is politics the reason? The governor presents himself as righteously, almost angrily, indifferent to politics where questions of civil rights are involved.

It might be that gun rights are less sacred than voting rights. Perhaps—although the Bill of Rights dedicates an entire amendment (the Second) to that topic, despite lumping several other sacred rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, together in the First. But even if the right to bear arms ranks below the right to vote in importance, it surely ranks above the right to serve as a notary public.

The truth is that McAuliffe simply doesn't approve of gun rights. When he ran for governor, he "proudly tout(ed) his F rating" from the NRA, The New Republic noted at the time. But other people's rights are not supposed to depend on whether we approve of them or not; that is, in a sense, the entire meaning of the term. If McAuliffe means what he has said about redemption, then he will follow up his move on voting rights with a similar effort for gun rights—at least for nonviolent felons.

If he really means what he says.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/04/should-felons-get-their-gun-rights-back

NEXT: immigrantseconomy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only we aren’t talking about felons here. We’re talking about x felons, correct? When exactly did team purple come up with the twisted idea that anyone ever convicted of a felony is supposed to serve a lifetime sentence of becoming half a citizen after they’ve already served their time? Where in the constitution does it say ‘except all these rights are not guaranteed if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony? And it’s so ingrained into society now that no politician dare even speak of it, except maybe Rand Paul and a few assorted democrats. We’ve almost fully accepted the boot of tyranny now. All we need is to get people at each other’s throat a little more over such trivial bullshit as bathrooms and gay wedding cakes, and the boot of tyranny will be fully and permanently implanted upon the face of liberty.

    1. “Only we aren’t talking about felons here. We’re talking about x felons, correct?

      So, you would be happier if these felons were given a lifetime sentence and locked in cages for life–rather than just have their Second Amendment rights no longer protected after the incarceration phase of their sentence is over?

      Or are you arguing that convicted felons should have their Second Amendment rights protected in jail?

      If there is any problem here, it’s that the question of the felon’s gun rights aren’t addressed specifically in sentencing.

      So long as the judge appropriately sentences people to not possessing a gun, there shouldn’t be any problem in terms of due process.

      1. Ken, I am a little surprised that you don’t at all seem to get what I am trying to say here. Maybe I didn’t write as clearly as I could have. But let me clarify:

        1. I do not believe that prisoners should have guns while incarcerated.

        2. I do not believe that felons should receive automatic life time sentences, unless of course when the sentence was a life sentence to start with.

        3. I do not believe that felons, upon serving their sentence, should still be regarded as felons. Instead they should return to society as full citizens with NONE of their constitutional rights denied them.

        Does that clear it up?

        1. “I do not believe that felons, upon serving their sentence, should still be regarded as felons. Instead they should return to society as full citizens with NONE of their constitutional rights denied them.”

          No, that doesn’t clear anything up.

          The alternative to prohibiting guns from people who are duly incarcerated is to keep them duly incarcerated for longer.

          Letting people out of cages and not protecting their Second Amendment rights is a liberty maximizing solution–compared to keeping them locked in cages for longer.

          Furthermore, prohibiting people from acquiring firearms is less problematic from liberty maximizing perspective than locking them in cages. If it’s alright to lock them in cages, why isn’t it alright to do less?

          The only question is whether the sentence of not acquiring a gun is specifically referenced in sentencing.

          1. We aren’t going to agree on this.

          2. You should learn to write. That’s total gibberish and what Hyperion wrote was perfectly clear and made perfect sense.

      2. So long as the judge appropriately sentences people to not possessing a gun, there shouldn’t be any problem in terms of due process

        No, I don’t agree with that. I don’t see how you can sentence someone to not possessing a gun for life. That’s a violation of the person’s 2nd amendment rights. So are we going to apply that to the first amendment also? Talk about a slippery slope.

        1. “I don’t see how you can sentence someone to not possessing a gun for life.”

          Do you see how you can sentence someone to be locked in a cage for life?

          Withdrawing the legal protection for their gun rights (because they willfully forfeited their gun rights) is a lesser sentence than being locked in a cage.

          1. Ok, one more try. Remember way back before making people 2nd class citizens for life and things like no fly lists and sex offender lists and other bullshit like that? People committed a crime. They got a sentence. They got out and returned to society, time served. I’m suggesting we go back to that because all of this extra shit is going to slide us down a slippery slope to totalitarianism. As I said again, why not take away a person’s other constitutional rights? What about free speech? Let them out of jail, but tell them they can’t speak in public, forever. Does that sound ok too? We aren’t going to agree here, so I will let it go.

    2. “Where in the constitution does it say ‘except all these rights are not guaranteed if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony?”

      It’s called due process and cruel and unusual punishment. So long as due process is given and the punishment is neither cruel nor unusual, locking people in cages is perfectly Constitutional. They don’t necessarily lose their First Amendment free speech or religious rights. But if I willfully violate someone else’s right with a gun and a jury finds me unanimously guilty, it is not a stretch to suggest that I may have willingly forfeited my right to choose to own a gun.

      It’s like a broken contract. If I violate a contract, the government isn’t violating my property rights when it sentences me to pay. I willingly signed that contract. The government can’t really force me to do something I willingly agreed to do in a contract. It’s like that with crime. We all have a legal obligation to respect other people’s rights. When we willfully violate other people’s rights, the government is simply enforcing a contract. When we willfully violate that obligation to respect other people’s rights, surely we willingly forfeit something. That the thing we forfeit is the legal protection for the Second Amendment rights we abused when we violated someone’s rights seems entirely appropriate.

      I understand withdrawing legal protection for criminals’ Second Amendment rights better than I understand locking them in cages.

      1. But if I willfully violate someone else’s right with a gun and a jury finds me unanimously guilty, it is not a stretch to suggest that I may have willingly forfeited my right to choose to own a gun.

        If I shout hurtful things at you while violating your rights, do I give up my right to speak forever?

        1. No.

          But if you use your speech to threaten to shoot me for not emptying the cash register, you might be forfeiting the legal protection for your right to own a gun.

          1. Moreso than my other legal rights? What is so special about guns that they must be treated with greater scrutiny than the criminal act itself?

            1. Do you think it would be alright for the government to gag prisoners so they can’t talk?

              Do you think it is alright to disarm prisoners while they’re in prison?

              Just because violating free speech and violating gun rights are both alike in that they both represent rights violations does not mean they’re exactly alike in every other way.

              Meanwhile, I’m the one taking the liberty maximizing position. I’m the one saying that even if withdrawing legal protection for people’s gun rights after they’ve been convicted of a gun crime is alright–in cases when they’ve willfully forfeited those rights by willfully committing a gun crime–they still retain their other rights intact.

              What are you trying to accomplish by arguing that restricting a violent criminal’s speech is no different from withdrawing protection for their gun rights?

              1. What I’m trying to accomplish is to get a coherent justification out of you, which is clearly turning into a futile task.

                1. A coherent justification for why people forfeit legal protection for their Second Amendment rights–when they willfully violate the rights of other people by willfully committing a crime with a gun?

                  There’s nothing incoherent about what I’m saying.

                  1. There’s nothing incoherent about what I’m saying.

                    There’s “nothing incoherent” if a) you assign agency to the gun or b) view gun rights as inferior to other rights.

                    You have stated your position. Ad nauseum. What you haven’t done is justified it.

      2. Most felonies DO NOT involve guns.

        1. Hell most Felonies do not involve violating anyone’s rights

          1. But, for the children.

        2. “Most felonies DO NOT involve guns.”

          I appreciate that.

          And the Second Amendment rights of people who have been duly convicted of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence should be fully protected by the law once they’re no longer incarcerated.

      3. Should convicted perjurers and defamers be subject to prior restraint and censorship of all their communications for the rest of their lives?

        1. I don’t believe so, no. But there are some important distinctions between speech and guns to be made in terms of the threats they pose to other people’s rights. Like I said, threaten to shoot someone unless they empty the cash register, and the problem isn’t really about the speech. It’s about the violence.

          So, no, I do not believe it is generally appropriate to withdraw legal protection for the First Amendment rights of duly convicted criminals.

          And it might even be appropriate for a judge not to sentence someone convicted of a crime committed with a gun to having the legal protections for their Second Amendment rights withdrawn. You shot your husband when he was no longer presenting an immediate threat–but hours after he raped you? I suppose judges in those cases should have some discretion in sentencing someone to not being able to legally acquire a gun.

          However, there are other cases in which people do legitimately forfeit legal protections for their gun rights–and I think judges should have to withdraw that protection specifically as part of sentencing.

          1. The gun is not the threat, the person wielding it is.

            You flirt dangerously close to denying the agency of the criminal.

            1. Rights are people making choices.

              Gun rights are the right of people to choose to own a gun.

              And I’m not denying the agency of the criminal. I’m proclaiming it.

              I’m saying that the true purpose of a jury is to determine whether the accused willingly forfeited the legal protection for certain rights when he willfully chose to violate someone’s rights with a gun.

              What I’m saying is all about the agency of the criminal.

              Criminals willingly forfeit protection for their rights. The government doesn’t violate their rights when a criminal is properly convicted by a jury that properly considers mens rea.

              I’m saying that the agency of the criminal is a crucial component of mens rea. The agency of the criminal in this formulation is paramount.

              1. Stop making so many goddamn assertions in one post and just address what is being said.

                We are talking about the lifelong forfeiture of gun rights without commensurate forfeiture of other rights.

                Justify that position on its own merits.

                1. I’ve answered that numerous times.

                  Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean they aren’t answers.

                  1) We generally only forfeit protection of the rights we forfeit. Forfeiting protection for our speech rights is not a function of violent crime. Even when we make violent threats (speech), it isn’t the speech that’s the problem; it’s the violent component of the speech that’s the problem. Why withdraw protection for speech rights when the problem is the violence?

                  2) Refusing to let people communicate is cruel and unusual. Refusing to protect their Second Amendment rights isn’t. And if you don’t want to forfeit the legal protection of your Second Amendment rights because you violated someone’s rights with a gun–there’s an easy way to do that: Don’t commit a violent crime.

                  3) Just because speech rights and gun rights are both rights doesn’t mean they’re exactly alike in every way. Some present a bigger threat to other people’s rights than others. Judges should make determinations on a case by case basis as to when it’s appropriate to withdraw legal protection for the Second Amendment rights of duly tried and convicted violent criminals.

                  And that should be part of sentencing–not just applied to every felony conviction across the board.

                  1. Restating your position for the umpteenth time but with more words each time is not the same thing as justifying your position.

                    Just fucking say you think the 2A is inferior to the 1A and be done with it.

                    1. “Just fucking say you think the 2A is inferior to the 1A and be done with it.”

                      Now you’re being willfully obtuse.

                    2. “Restating your position for the umpteenth time but with more words each time is not the same thing as justifying your position.”

                      Maybe you should just admit that things like “mens rea means violent criminals willingly forfeit their Second Amendment rights” is too confusing for you.

      4. So if you are convicted slander, it’s perfectly legal to lose your 1A rights?

        1. Oh, this is *fun*!

          How do you end up having to quarter soldiers?

          1. Running a motel without the proper permits.

          2. Failing to register for the draft.

          3. How do you lose your 4A rights? Just kidding, we haven’t had those in forever.

          4. Hitler.

        2. Slippery slope, bro, but let’s just go down that road!

          1. I could never imagine anyone being jailed for political speech.

            *cough* jury nullification *cough*

            1. *cough* Schenck v. United States

        3. You’re channeling Clarence Thomas, aren’t you?

          1. If forced to channel a Supreme Court judge, it would be him.

        4. “So if you are convicted slander, it’s perfectly legal to lose your 1A rights?

          Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

          Also, speeding tickets mean you lose your driver’s license forever.

          Actually, I didn’t say that at all. Speech presents a different threat level to the rights of other people. (And slander isn’t a crime).

          I will say, however, that the defining characteristic of criminal speech is that it’s speech used to violate someone’s rights. If you use your gun to violate someone’s rights, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect you from prosecution. If you use your speech to violate someone’s rights, the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from prosecution either.

          Most bank robberies involve someone passing a note to a cashier claiming to have a gun. Whether a judge should sentence you to no longer being able to communicate for that and whether that was a crime are two separate questions. I suppose sentencing someone to no longer being able to communicate at all would be cruel and unusual punishment. Withdrawing legal protection for their Second Amendment rights? I’m not sure that’s cruel and unusual at all. In fact, I’m sure it’s not–not generally speaking.

          1. Life is inferior to liberty now? It’s cruel and unusual to subject you to restraints on speech, but not on your right to defend yourself?

            1. There’s no one size fits all.

              Like I said up top, a woman who shot her abusive husband (while he was asleep or something), just because she committed a crime with a gun doesn’t necessarily mean she should lose the protection of her Second Amendment rights.

              And, yeah, some judge in that case might determine it would be cruel and unusual for her not to be able to defend herself in the future against her vengeful and abusive ex-husband (assuming he survived).

              I believe in judicial discretion in sentencing rather than statutory minimum, one size fits all sentencing. And I’m not saying one rule should apply to all situations. I’m just saying that it can be appropriate for a judge to sentence a violent criminal to not having his Second Amendment rights protected by the law–and I think judges should have to specifically do that.

              1. I’m just saying that it can be appropriate for a judge to sentence a violent criminal to not having his Second Amendment rights protected by the law

                Indeed, you are just saying that, and nothing else, such as a justification for the singling out of the Second Amendment for especial denigration.

    3. “get people at each other’s throat a little more over such trivial bullshit as bathrooms and gay wedding cakes”

      This implies a moral equivalence between (a) those who think have the right to decide whether and how much to serve gay customers and (b) those who want to have the government go after them if their business practices relating to gays don’t meet the government’s demands.

      To me, the question of whether business owners have the right to operate their businesses as they see fit is just as important as whether burglars should be allowed to vote after getting out of prison.

      1. (a) those who think *businesses* have the right

  2. “Ex-cons “deserve the right to be fully reintegrated into society,” as another Virginia newspaper columnist put it over the weekend. “Fully” is not a synonym for “partly.”

    I don’t see it like that.

    The government cannot deprive people of their rights. That is why we have a jury of our peers. A jury isn’t the government; that is what makes them our peers.

    The Second Amendment doesn’t give us the right to indiscriminately shoot people. It gives us the right to choose to own a gun. We can waive that right if we use it to violate someone else’s rights. In fact, the true job of a jury is determine whether the accused willingly forfeited his rights when he willfully violated* someone else’s rights. That is a crucial part of what we’re talking about when we talk about mens rea.

    If a jury–which is not the government–concludes unanimously that an individual willingly forfeited his rights when he willfully violated someone else’s rights with a gun, all with respect for the defendant’s due process rights, then I don’t see why that individual’s right to choose to own a gun should be protected by law thereafter.

    1. The government cannot deprive people of their rights.

      It does that very thing every single day.

      1. No it doesn’t. The government violates rights, it doesn’t remove them. Unless you’re talking about executions.

        1. I don’t think that deprive and remove mean the same thing.

          1. When I look up ‘deprive’ it says ‘take away’.

            Guess I just got a bum dictionary.

            1. Well, ok, but not in the context of the argument here. Deprive would mean a temporary condition, like this:

              I was deprived of being able to drive my car while it was in my shop.

              My car was removed from my possession. Permanent condition.

              1. Context is for fags, Hyperion. The only way to truly understand anything is in the purity of a vacuum.

      2. “It does that very thing every single day.”

        It cannot do so properly.

        Aren’t we talking about propriety from a libertarian standpoint here?

        And that’s where I’m drawing my line. The government can and does violate people’s rights, but it cannot do so justly. People forfeit their rights. Whether they’ve done so is properly determined by a jury, respecting all the defendant’s rights to due process.

        Isn’t that what we’re talking about? Whether a duly convicted felon’s Second Amendment rights are forfeit?

    2. Ken, the jury doesn’t vote to deprive an individual defendant of their constitutional right to own a firearm after their sentence of incarceration has run. The government has done that. Laws that make your constitutional right to keep and bear arms contingent upon not having committed a felony – even after you have fully completed the sentence handed down – are absurd. Like sex offender registries, they presuppose future violent conduct and constitute prospective punishment outside of what the jury has sentenced the individual to.

      1. Thank you.

      2. ^This. And it shouldn’t be controversial.

        1. But it is controversial because our elected leaders have made it so. If anyone even dares speak of this, the immediate response will be: But criminals with guns! Children not safe! They hate our children, crazies on the loose! Our elected leaders, even the ones that might agree with you and I, are a bunch of spineless pussies who only care about getting reelected.

      3. “Ken, the jury doesn’t vote to deprive an individual defendant of their constitutional right to own a firearm after their sentence of incarceration has run. The government has done that.”

        A jury properly determines whether a crime was commuted–including proper consideration for mens rea.

        Judges should sentence criminals when duly convicted by a proper jury.

        There is no reason why that sentence can’t properly include withdrawing legal protection for a violent criminal’s Second Amendment rights–especially if the jury has determined that because of mens rea, the convicted criminal has effectively forfeited legal protection for his Second Amendment rights by violating someone’s rights with a gun.

        This should not be controversial. This is the justification for locking people in cages, too. Do you imagine that’s alright just because the government says so? Criminals willingly forfeit some of their liberties when they willfully violate other people’s rights (Hello, mens rea!). This is why we can properly lock violent criminals up in cages.

        This is also why we can’t properly lock people in cages for possessing marijuana. They haven’t forfeited protection for the right to liberty because they haven’t willfully violated anyone else’s rights.

    3. The jury is a governmental agent.

  3. I’d go even further to include other crimes like rape that maybe didn’t involve a gun. If you forced yourself on a woman without a gun, as far as the law is concerned, you should be considered to have forfeited your right to choose to own a gun that would facilitate another attack like that again in the future. The only catch is that having forfeited your right to own a gun should be part of the sentence. “I hereby sentence the defendant to five years in prison and to not own a gun for a period of . . .”

    People willingly waive their Fifth Amendment rights. They waive their right to a trial by jury, their right to counsel, their right to remain silent, etc. They willingly waive their right not to be locked in a cage for years at a time when they willingly commit a violent crime. Why is it improper to think they willingly waived their right to choose to own a gun when they willfully used a gun to violate someone else’s rights, too?

    1. something, something, newsletter, subscription.

    2. If you forced yourself on a woman without a gun, as far as the law is concerned, you should be considered to have forfeited your right to choose to own a gun penis that would facilitate another attack like that again in the future.

      FTFY?

      1. Interestingly enough, my wife is currently acting as a legal consultant for someone regarding a law proposal in Brazil that would effectively restrict convicted rapists from owning a functional penis. It’s a drug/hormone treatment of some type, I believe the term is ‘chemical castration’. She was asking me for references of how this is used here in the USA and upon checking I told her that I think it has been of use here but may have since been ruled unconstitutional by at least one judge at some level. My comment was that the judge who this considering it should be the one castrated, and not by chemical means, and after certain mulching devices might come into play. She frowned upon my silly libertarianism and ask me to translate something for her, which I did, but it made me feel sort of slimey.

        1. She frowned upon my silly libertarianism

          I must have told you a million times, Hyperion — Don’t exaggerate!

          1. Ok. The truth is she said something like ‘Merda! Droga! Stop that and help me!’

        2. Chemical castration sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

          I don’t even think it should be used on a voluntary basis to get earlier parole–since 1) requiring something to get parole isn’t really voluntary and 2) it’s cruel and unusual.

          We don’t cut people’s noses off either.

          P.S. IF IF IF porn makes the rape rate go down, I’d bet chemical castration makes things worse. A chemically castrated child molester may be more dangerous than one who can get his rocks off through autoerotic stimulation periodically.

          1. Chemical castration sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me

            Well, at least we agree on something, Ken.

  4. I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson. Stealing is wrong. But voting of Bernie to steal for you is social justice.

    1. There’s nothing in this article about Bernie Sanders.

  5. Only 21 percent had been convicted of a violent offense

    Four out of five felons didn’t do anything violent, yet they can’t legally own a gun. Land of the free.

  6. Four out of five toddlers can’t talk so there’s no reason to believe they ever will.

    1. What does that even mean?

      1. It means four out of five blah blah blah is a stupid argument to make. I knew I should have explained that for the slow people in the crowd.

        1. I’m gathering that you disapprove of the general tone the comments are taking, I just can’t figure out why.

          1. I can guarantee that five out of five first time murderers never killed anyone before. When there are better arguments to make that better prove your case, saying “well they never did it before” is really dumb.

            1. The argument is that even the flimsy hook of depriving felons of their Second Amendment rights because they’re especially dangerous holds no weight because the majority of them weren’t convicted of violent crimes.

              1. Well, I had no idea I was conversing with precogs. I guess you saw my chagrin before I did.

            2. I can guarantee that five out of five first time murderers never killed anyone before. When there are better arguments to make that better prove your case, saying “well they never did it before” is really dumb.

              This seems a fair point.

          2. Because the justice system is pure and the scum in jail have it coming.

        2. So you’re saying that people ought to be deprived of their Second Amendment rights because they might possibly someday commit a violent crime?

          1. See above.

          2. I’ve got the perfect solution! All of us ‘could’ one day kill someone. Let’s just get rid of this 2nd amendment! Problem solved.

            1. It certainly shows that you can’t stop people from being thick.

            2. I’ve got the perfect solution! All of us ‘could’ one day kill someone. Let’s just get rid of this 2nd amendment! Problem solved.

              Many leftists actually believe this.

              1. I think you can change ‘many’ to ‘most’ or maybe even ‘overwhelming majority’. It’s become quite apparent to me that progress and liberty mean 2 completely different things.

                1. It’s become quite apparent to me that progress and liberty mean 2 completely different things.

                  Leftists openly scoff at the idea of liberty. People need to be controlled. They need to ask permission. They need to obey orders. They need to follow rules.

                  “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

                  ? Robert A. Heinlein

                  The latter are a dying breed. Give the former enough power, and they will literally kill off the latter.

  7. OT: When CBS ordered six new shows last week, fans on Twitter pointed out the one thing they all had in common: The top-billed actor in each was white and male.

    Soon observers began to accuse the broadcaster of not doing enough to cast women and actors of color at a time when the rest of the industry was making strides in that direction.

    The horror. The horror.

    1. Yes, a national crisis. 90 million people out of work, we’re involved in an endless quagmire in the ME, a tinderbox that could set the entire planet ablaze any moment, but the top fucking issue we need to be concerned with is too many white males in muh TV shows, I can’t go to the girl’s bathroom cause I got a penis, blurble blurble derpity fuck.

    2. And then they all wondered why there’s nothing worth watching on TV anymore.

      1. I liked that colored show that used to be on the TV. Some guy named George and he had a dry cleaner biz or something like that. Not sure how whitey was unable to keep that off the air.

  8. “If he really means what he says.”

    I once heard Greentech Automotive wasn’t a visa-for-sale scheme too.

  9. The truth is that McAuliffe simply doesn’t approve of gun rights for blacks.

    FTFY

    1. He doesn’t approve of gun rights for anyone. Except maybe himself. For the Dems, it’s all about numbers. They’ll take an inch at a time until the fortress has fallen. Let’s see, 200k felons, there’s 200k more people who we’ve effectively removed that 2nd amendment thing from, who’s next?

  10. One of my favorite things to do when someone approaches me with a clipboard outside of Whole Foods is to tell them I’m a convicted Felon. I guess I’ll have to find a new approach if I’m ever in Virginia.

    1. I don’t think that even works for the Lyndon Larouche crowd though. NOTHING can stop them from talking to you about the wonders of publicly-funded high-speed rail.

      1. I see those guys occasionally at BWI airport. In fact, they were there again the last time I was there. I once stopped and talked to them. That was the last time. I actually couldn’t really talk to them. They just kept going with their spiel and totally ignored what I was saying, tried to give me some literature they were handing out. Something about nuclear wars being started by the illuminati and the aliens or something.

    1. WOW.

    2. Citizen X’s thoughts and prayers are with you.

  11. It’s because the 2nd Amendment is still the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights, with too many people wanting to see it struck down as unconstitutional.

    (Yeah, you see the contradiction involved in striking down part of the Constitution as being unconstitutional, and I see the contradiction there. But I don’t think they see it.)

    1. Who thinks it’s unconstitutional? Most gun controllers I know want to either ignore it or repeal it.

  12. “To hear the GOP tell it, every last one of them is a psychotic, ax-murdering rapist.”…

    So What?!?! If we assume that they are, does that mean we shouldn’t let them vote? Call me naive, but even if they passionately support a pro-rape, pro-ax-murder agenda, I’m fairly sure that they’re not going to form enough of a majority to change laws. Even if they could, is that a reasonable justification for taking away their voting rights?

    As a general rule, it’s not right to take away someone’s voting rights because they might vote for something that’s considered unacceptable.

  13. We see here the Democraticversion of what a citizen is like – he isn’t allowed to bear arms in his own defense, but he *is* allowed to vote. In fact, he’s expected to go to the polls regularly and vote Democrat – and if he doesn’t he’ll get shaming letters rebuking him for neglecting his civic duty.

  14. The right to vote is the right to deide which man shall be your master.
    The right to keep and bear arms is the right to decide no man shall be your master.

    hth

  15. This author focuses on McAuliffe saying ex-felons should enoy “all rights” when he actually means the rights he approves of.

    What I haven’t seen mentioned yet is the debate over whether the governor has the authority to unilaterally make these changes.

  16. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did…

    ?????? http://www.nypost55.com

  17. Even if Virginia returned the right of felons to own firearms it would still be illegal under the unconstitutional federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which was based on Nazi firearms laws during the Third Reich.

    Just face it: America is a fascist dictatorship.

  18. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  19. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  20. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  21. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain …that…my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resently paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here….

    Simply tap On This sort of Link –

    =========? http://www.Path50.com

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…————————- http://www.cash-spot.com

  23. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  24. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.