Posted on 01/05/2020 9:38:58 PM PST by Perseverando
A new line of attack on Virginia’s fast-growing gun sanctuary movement, which is propelling similar pro-gun efforts in other states, compares it to slavery, drawing criticism from movement leaders who have won support in 91% of the state’s counties.
In the latest Washington Post slam on the movement, dubbed “vigilantism” in a recent editorial, the paper gave space Sunday to a critic who said the “thinking” behind the organic movement is what propelled slavery and opposed the civil rights movement.
Peter Galuszka called the movement “disturbing,” “reactionary,” “hysteria,” “ugly,” and “dangerous.”
In linking it to slavery, he wrote, “A sad irony is that the ‘sanctuary’ movement conjures the disturbing nullification movements of the past three centuries in Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states have the right to ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional. That thinking was applied to proslavery movements, leading to the Civil War and the fight over integration in the 1950s and 1960s.”
He also cited polls showing broad public support for gun control, which the new Democratic state legislature and Gov. Ralph Northam plan to use in arguing for a ban on modern sporting weapons such as the AR-15, limits on the size of magazines that hold cartridges, an expanded background check system, and a new $4 million, 18-member team to enforce new gun control measures and a limit on gun purchases.
@VCDL_ORG Don't Sit This Vote Out, group wrote on website https://t.co/iymnYhGmqv “Staying Home Cost Us So Many Elections Last Nov. We Need Enormous Presence To Offset Anti's That Are Organizing.” To Stop Them Taking Your Constitution Rights Is Important! https://t.co/ANqYQpQEcv
— SheepdogSecurity (@SheepdogSecurit) January 5, 2020 The media’s push for gun control, however, was met with pushback today from Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt, a leader in the sanctuary movement in which some 116 Virginia communities and counties have voted to ignore gun control laws emerging from Richmond.
He said that the Post and Galuszka are misreading the polls and the public’s desire for gun control as it has turned blue.
“There’s a lot The Washington Post got wrong in this story. The author is wildly wrong about the supposed public support for gun control. Consider that a majority of Maine residents voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, even while defeating a ballot initiative that would establish ‘red flag’ gun confiscation orders. So if these red flag gun grabs are opposed by a majority of voters even in certain blue states, how can anyone really claim with a straight face that a majority of Americans support such a law?” he told Secrets.
He also said that any comparison to slavery is simply an effort to demonizing gun owners.
“In an attempt to demonize ‘nullification,’” he told us, the column “completely ignores how anti-slavery forces helped to undermine the Fugitive Slave Act — such as when juries refused to convict defendants who assisted runaway slaves.”
And, he added, “Sanctuary resolutions are important because they provide the best way for local officials to inform the newly elected General Assembly and the governor that if they rush forward to create new felony crimes to jail law-abiding Virginians — just for exercising their most fundamental and natural right of self-defense — then they cannot expect localities to enforce such unjust laws. What these sanctuary jurisdictions are doing is not resistance, but noncooperation — a principle that runs through all levels of government dating from colonial America.”
The fight is expected to escalate with a handful of other counties and cities slated to consider gun sanctuary proposals and the opening of the new legislative session in Richmond.
What’s more, the National Rifle Association has signaled that it is joining the fight and just issued “Take Action” notice. In it, the NRA said, “Law-abiding gun owners throughout the Commonwealth must continue to join together to fight against gun bans, gun rationing, and confiscation this January in Richmond.”
So - FReedom to protect oneself and your loved ones is akin to slavery now...say the would-be slave-owners.
How is that any different from the immigration "sanctuary cities"?
Denying that nullification is an option is a step down the road to tyranny.
Peter Galuszka has never been anything more than a democrat activist with a byline.
Au contraire. Those sanctuaries are the patriots' Underground Railroad.
People were enslaved because they were unequal, deficient, weak.
Having guns aids equality, decreases weakness. Guns are a defense against those who use the tyrannical law as a weapon be they Iranian or American
I think there is still enough old men, military trained around that would disagree with the idea of removing guns from the public. If the libs would bide their time for 30 yrs there would be enough soy boys to accept the premise of no guns.
Sorry hypocrites. When you applauded the “Sanctuary city” movement on illegal aliens, you lost all moral credibility to posture now. You don’t get to selectively pick and choose which laws you will enforce.
And our solution to illegal trafficking of alcohol was to legalize it. I think this was the right solution regarding that drug - and would be the right solution today at least as regards the #1-by-a-mile most used illegal drug: marijuana. Do you agree?
Calling whites the R word is like calling blacks the N word.
Liberals love sanctuary cities.
Marijuana for young people may affect brain development. People are voting to keep pot shops out of their community. In our community, they wanted to put a pot shop right across from the high school. Voters in our community voted against the pot shops by 7 percentage points. Some communities ban alcohol sales. In our community, alcohol is banned in certain parks.
Because legalization took a large segment of pot sales away from Mexico, growers in Mexico and Columbia turned to opium cultivation. Most of US heroin now comes from Mexico and Columbia. This makes it easier to get heroin in the country. We have a flood of heroin in our country and a huge population of homeless addicts under its grip.
My observations point to the consequences of the drugs. We need to deal with the consequences whether they are legal or not.
And our solution to illegal trafficking of alcohol was to legalize it. I think this was the right solution regarding that drug - and would be the right solution today at least as regards the #1-by-a-mile most used illegal drug: marijuana. Do you agree?
Marijuana for young people may affect brain development.
Marijuana criminalization has failed to keep that drug away from young people; they have been reporting since well before any state had legalized that they could get marijuana almost as easily as cigarettes or beer, although the latter two are much more widespread among adults. The available evidence indicates that the best way of keeping a drug away from young people is to legalize it for adults - which gives its sellers an economic incentive to confine their sales to adults, namely the risk of losing their legal adult market.
People are voting to keep pot shops out of their community. In our community, they wanted to put a pot shop right across from the high school. Voters in our community voted against the pot shops by 7 percentage points. Some communities ban alcohol sales. In our community, alcohol is banned in certain parks.
Communities should be able to make their own decisions on alcohol or marijuana, free of federal interference (for which there is no Constitutional authorization).
Because legalization took a large segment of pot sales away from Mexico, growers in Mexico and Columbia turned to opium cultivation. Most of US heroin now comes from Mexico and Columbia. This makes it easier to get heroin in the country. We have a flood of heroin in our country and a huge population of homeless addicts under its grip.
According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), heroin use has been flat since 2012 - before any state legalized marijuana: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.htm#illicit4
My observations point to the consequences of the drugs. We need to deal with the consequences whether they are legal or not.
Your first post was explicitly about illegality, as is your most recent point about marijuana legalization's alleged effect on heroin use. The consequences that we need to deal with whether they are legal or not, are by definition not arguments against legalization (not that you said they were).
I don't think it's an extension at all...it's already there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.