Virginia - Representative Gerry Connolly's response

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm in his district. He's a lost cause. He'll vote in lockstep for any restriction that's proposed. The thing is, that probably reflects the majority opinion in the district. Even Republicans, such as ex-Rep. Tom Davis and his wife, ex-State Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, were anti-gun. They were thrown out partly because they weren't anti-gun enough. (Jeannemarie started her career endorsed by the NRA, but shifted over to the anti-gun side as she sniffed the political winds here.)
 
If 99% of people were in favor of banning ownership of any firearm, it still flies in the face of the Constitution. This is not a democracy, this country in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution trumps opinions. WE have a right and a responsibility to defend it from anyone who tramples on it.
 
If, indeed, 99% of people were in favor of banning all firearms, they would amend the Constitution in short order to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The point is, they're not, and they won't.

This country is still a democracy, even though it has republican forms. What this means is that it's a "democracy with brakes" that has reasonable built-in protections for minority opinions. Don't confuse "democracy" (rule by the organized body of the people) with "ochlocracy" (rule by the mob). The ancient Greeks had this all worked out in a rather sophisticated way.

The Constitution is not an unchangeable idol, to be worshipped. It's an expression of the people. The Founders, recognizing that, made provision so that it could be changed when necessary.
 
I respectfully submit that there is no such thing as a "democracy with brakes". If so, who gets to apply the brakes?

A part of the Constitution cannot be "repealed", but the Constitution can be amended, as provided for in the Constitution.

The Constitution is much more than an "expression of the people" - It is the LAW of the land.
 
If there is such nationwide support for these restrictions, why not just do it in keeping with the Constitution and thereby quash the argument that these things are unconstitutional. In other words, draft an amendment to the Constitution that specifies the things you want banned and set it in motion. If banning these things is so broadly supported, the process should go very quickly.
 
"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free,
. . . you expect what never was and can never be."
- Thomas Jefferson



Unfortunately, for over 100 years, Americans haven't been taught their true history or the nature of their government. They know next to nothing of our founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. And, they know nothing of the historical perspective of the founders & framers of our government. The founders knew history, and sought to form a government that might avoid abuse of the citizenry. That is, one that would encourage Liberty.

Americans also havent been taught how to think for at least 100 years. They know nothing of evidence, logic, and rhetoric. They are numerically and statistically ignorant.
The odds are greater to be struck by lightening, than be a victim of a mass shooting. The numbers for the last 10 years are readily available for these two occurances, few seem to think to look them up. Or, they have no idea what they may mean. They are lead along by emotionalism and propaganda, (the rhetoric).

This should be an easy matter to settle. We're looking at highly rare & unlikely events. It would make more sense to 'enact new laws' to reduce the risks of being struck by lightening. Does anyone see that ?
In fact, violent gun crime has declined by almost 50% over the last 20 years. And none of the proposals would make any difference in this - in the same way that the 'scary' features addressed in the AWB on certain rifles, made no difference either. An informed citizenry would easily see through all this.
And then they would restate the reasons certain founders insisted that the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment be added to the US Constitution. And everyone would recognize and understand that.
 
Last edited:
You need to work diligently to get him out of office.
And I don't for a moment believe that 74% of NRA members are in favor of gun registration, which is what universal background checks would require.
That whole survey is made up of feel good questions that you cannot help but say "yes" too.
 
Pointshoot said:
"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free,
. . . you expect what never was and can never be."
- Thomas Jefferson



Unfortunately, for over 100 years, Americans haven't been taught their true history or the nature of their government. They know next to nothing of our founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. And, they know nothing of the historical perspective of the founders & framers of our government. The founders knew history, and sought to form a government that might avoid abuse of the citizenry. That is, one that would encourage Liberty.

Americans also havent been taught how to think for at least 100 years. They know nothing of evidence, logic, and rhetoric. They are numerically and statistically ignorant.
The odds are greater to be struck by lightening, than be a victim of a mass shooting. The numbers for the last 10 years are readily available for these two occurances, few seem to think to look them up. Or, they have no idea what they may mean. They are lead along by emotionalism and propaganda, (the rhetoric).

This should be an easy matter to settle. We're looking at highly rare & unlikely events. It would make more sense to 'enact new laws' to reduce the risks of being struck by lightening. Does anyone see that ?
In fact, violent gun crime has declined by almost 50% over the last 20 years. And none of the proposals would make any difference in this - in the same way that the 'scary' features addressed in the AWB on certain rifles, made no difference either. An informed citizenry would easily see through all this.
And then they would restate the reasons certain founders insisted that the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment be added to the US Constitution. And everyone would recognize and understand that.
Click to expand...
It may have been 100 years for some since American Founders' documents and intent were taught, but in the early '60's in high school, we read the Constitution in our Social Studies class, and even got a little exposure to the Federalist Papers. Later, at University, I was required to read ALL of the Federalist Papers in an intro Political Science course. Nowadays, the kids are required to learn "diversity," and "alternative Lifestyles" instead. My youngest daughter was REQUIRED at State University of New York to take one of two courses: "Gay and Lesbian Studies," or "Alternative Lifestyles". There was no requirement for Humanities (great literature), or Intro. Political Science (study of forms of government, including ours).

We reap what we sow, or in this case, we reap what has been sown by the lack of attention to our academic environment and standards for the past 40 years.
 
You need to work diligently to get him out of office.
And I don't for a moment believe that 74% of NRA members are in favor of gun registration, which is what universal background checks would require.
That whole survey is made up of feel good questions that you cannot help but say "yes" too.
Click to expand...

Let's not take that large of a step. Background checks are done on most sales, and we do not have registration. They are different. Now if they ask for universal background checks AND registration, then you are correct. They would have to enact both measures however.
 
Yo Mama - its always done one step at a time.

History proves that.

It is more effective to use the incremental approach because like the analogy of the frog in the pot with the water slowly turned up - - - he boils before understanding the danger he's in.
 
StilShooting - your experience sounds very familiar.

Starting in the late 1890s - early 1900s there was a push to take the teaching of true American history and the foundations of our government out of the schools. This was also a time when the push began for mandatory public schools. There is a great deal of documentation from that time that supports all this. Websearch the work of John Taylor Gatto and of Charlotte Iserbyt if you'd like to know more on this. It took a great deal of time for these efforts to get rolling. I'm middle aged, and I recall being taught these fundamental things in jr h.s. By the 1960s these 're-education'/indoctrination efforts accelerated. The extent of the damage depended on location and time.

And now, the best of h.s. and college students get none of this from their general education. I know American university graduates in political science, remarkably, who know little of this. - - - - That was not an accident.
 
Last edited:
Yo Mama - its always done one step at a time.

History proves that.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, it is one step at a time. It's just not all at once with background checks creating a mandatory registration scheme.
 
Connolly is an anti gun moron, he even tried to get 200 million appointed to him in the fiscal cliff deal to start a gun buy back program in northern Virginia. I can't wait to vote this clown out.
 
Connelly looks like a worm, you can be the judge, and he acts like one. Hardcore, pie-in-sky, hand-in-your-pocket liberal. Always has been one, so at least he's consistent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top