If you are referring to G&S, an EO isn't needed. A memo or a phone call would work. I know a change in the statute is preferred, but I'll take a change any way it can be done.
What 2A issue could be construed as a legitimate reason for an EO?
I care because those consenting adults you speak of are able to vote the same as you or I. The trouble is that drug addicts and drug abusers, alcoholics, whores and degenerate gamblers are slaves to their respective vices. Making an informed decision on election day isn't high on their list of priorities. These folks are easily misled, easily bribed and just as easily kept in their place by career politicians. If you think that you can have a functioning Constitutional Republic when the majority of the population is obsessed with vice think again. The Founders made it clear that our system of government was designed for a moral people and fit for no other.
Baltimore City is the poster child for consenting adults in action. Dope and coke flow like water, prostitutes are easy to come by, alcoholism is rampant, illegitimate children run the streets at 2 AM as though it were normal and probation before judgment is the sanction of choice for criminal behavior. If the choices consenting adults make didn't matter and didn't affect others Baltimore City would be just as safe and peaceful as it was in 1950. Unfortunately choices have consequences. Degenerates tend not to care about their liberties so long as they can continue to wallow in their own filth. I've known more than a few individuals personally who were committed to personal liberty until vice creeped in. After that they were indifferent or hostile toward freedom.
What does gay marriage have to do with wealth distribution? Have I ever stated that I support wealth distribution? Seems like you are just making things up and going on a rant.
Robert Taft disagrees. If he knew about the pro war, pro spying, anti civil liberties that the current Neo Conservatives were pushing he would be spinning in his grave. The social engineering programs of the current Republican party are in no way conservative. Republicans should be supporting ALL the constitution, which includes the 4th and 14th.
You had better wake up the changes and demographics of the country; the culture wars are essentially over. (except for the lunatic fringe) You can not win a national election with a Rick Santourm ect. Who cares what consenting adults do, the religious right is dragging the republican party down. I would rather get 70% of some than nothing. Actually the 2nd amendment is ranking higher - that people support it in polls over the years nationally, while social issues only resonate with enough people that you can't win a national election.
Let the left continue its play..and then we can rebuild. After enough have died in the social chaos. Darwin allways wins..of if you prefer..the hand of god. Either way its up to the left to get a clue and stop racing to the cliffs edge..
Darwin always wins. And historically, Darwin has always led to authoritarian states.
Darwin will not win you liberty.
It should. It's a state of liberty that allows people to be as stupid as they want, so sometimes the necessary Darwin awards for that stupidity get handed out.
It's the gooberment getting involved that gets in the way of that.
Darwin always wins. And historically, Darwin has always led to authoritarian states.
Darwin will not win you liberty.
Don't care. That's the point. The right is far better at this tyrany thing.
No, what it leaves in the modern world is the end of you and your descendants.I will not be a subject...what's that leave? Jack booted thug that's what.
In a world where there exists no place where one can go to escape authoritarianism, there is no plan B save perhaps for your exit from this world.Not my first choice , but also not my problem. I am working to save the republic,but if that fails ..... I allways have a plan B.
And that doesn't matter, since all roads lead to Rome, as it were.
No, what it leaves in the modern world is the end of you and your descendants.
The fight for liberty is worth that kind of sacrifice (at the point where nothing left on the table can possibly make any difference whatsoever), but it just means that Darwin will have his way with you as well.
Those who acquiesce to authoritarianism will survive. Those who do not will not, and neither will the genes that influence them towards fighting against authoritarianism. That is what Darwin results in.
In a world where there exists no place where one can go to escape authoritarianism, there is no plan B save perhaps for your exit from this world.
I have no illusions about how this is likely to end.
You have no clue how little I care about survival. But the plan is to be the tryant..
Well, I'm not. Who else would I spar with online?And if that fails.. I am fine with that death .
Darwin rewards those who survive. Those who survive tend to be the ones who simultaneously work better in groups, and thus are better at following orders, while also refusing to challenge those with power (i.e., those giving the orders). That automatically confers greater power onto those who are inclined towards it, and strips power away from those who aren't.
Hence, Darwin gets you authoritarianism, which is the polar opposite of liberty.
If you truly didn't care about survival, then you wouldn't want to carry a weapon for self-defense.
That's an interesting idea: be the tyrant in order to restore liberty. The other real tyrants won't have it, unfortunately. And they have far more power than you.
So the real question is: would you join them and rule the world with an iron fist, or would you fight for liberty and die? Your order of choice suggests the former, which would place you on the opposite side of many here, so my suspicion is that your order of preferences is more nuanced.
Well, I'm not. Who else would I spar with online?
I agree that authoritarianism is the polar opposite of liberty.
However, I disagree with the idea that only those who submit to authority are the only ones who shall survive. If that were the case the USA wouldn't exist because the founders instead would never have chosen to stand up to the crown.
Actually, you probably meant that it wouldn't exist because the founders wouldn't have prevailed. But that's part of my point. The United States exists because of an historical accident, a combination of circumstances that was both unique and necessary.
Had the founders lived in an area that was, say, next door to England, they never would have prevailed. Similarly, had they tried their revolt, say, today, against an England with the military might that the United States has today (similar in relative terms to what England had back then -- back then it was the superpower of the world), they never would have prevailed.
They won because they were separated from the tyrant by a large and dangerous body of water and because the average soldier's firepower back then was essentially the same as that of the average armed civilian. Change either of those, and the outcome changes, the founders lose, and the United States remains a colony of the tyranny that was England. And yet, despite those circumstances, they still barely won, and still required outside help to pull it off.
That authoritarianism is the historical norm doesn't mean that it is the sole form that exists. But it is the historical norm, and that isn't an accident.
13'er
These comments bother the shit out of me...
Yes, I am also a fellow "13'er" but half of you yokels look at that as if it was some bad thing when the law changes drove more people to become educated on guns. This forum is incredibly useful for that, and the fact that you make comments like this, to deter people from becoming more educated, is the stupidest thing ever!
You clearly have not read VA's state constitution, looked at the super majority of Republicans in the house and senate, looked a VA gun laws, or recognized that the last libtard Dem's 'one handgun a month' law passed by Doug Wilder 20 years ago was just repealed.