After attending the Virginia rally in defense of the Second Amendment, I was surprised to see a lack of press coverage.

While the rally had no effect on the passage of firearms laws by the Democratic-controlled Virginia government, I believe that it should have had more media coverage. Of course, one of the reasons was nothing happened. Twenty- to thirty-thousand people, many of them openly armed, rallied in a two-block area and there was one arrest and no violence.

Very disappointing from a news media perspective. The reason I believe the rally should have had more coverage is that it is an indicator of future actions. As the Virginia state government is busy passing restrictive firearms laws, they are alienating a large part of their population. How that population reacts will have to be seen. The reaction is going to be the important result of the rally. The first American civil war did not start with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. The first civil war started in Missouri and Kansas. It started with John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. It was a series of events that caused the population of the Southern states to feel they were disenfranchised and had no other choice but to declare themselves an independent country.

I see similar events happening in Virginia where a large group of Virginia's population is feeling disenfranchised and ignored by their elected government. It has only been a little more than a week since the Jan. 20 rally. It is probably too soon for a reaction by the firearm owners in Virginia. Their reaction could set the tone for future events both in Virginia and the nation.

To all the law enforcement personnel at the Virginia rally, I have to give a big job well done. It had to be a very stressful day for them and they handled themselves as true professionals. Their attitude and conduct helped make the rally a success.

(52) comments

prg45fan

I believe a very important fact is, a Democrat State Government that is pushing for those restrictive laws against the law abiding population. This will not stand at the next elections. Care to take bets?

Jleftwich

“ Among the measures likely to move forward: a return to Virginia’s one-handgun-per-month purchase policy; red flag laws; and universal background checks for all gun sales except those among immediate family members, through inheritance or antiques.”

Jleftwich

I hit “post comment” before including the source: https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/the-gun-bills-that-are-a-big-focus-for-new-democratic-led-virginia-general-assembly/

hayduke2

You say restrictive, some say "common sense."

prg45fan

"Common sense"? Ok. Common sense is actually understanding who the draconian laws will have the biggest negative effect on. Common sense says that it will be the lawful gun owners of Virginia. These restrictive laws have the ability to make otherwise law abiding gun owners/citizens into felons overnight. This is ultimately a fight for Liberty against State government overreach. This is a very bad situation that is unfolding. I believe the state of Virginia is a test for the rest of this Nation. I'll be watching very closely.

prg45fan

I forgot to add the part about it being a "Democrat" State Government. That is a very salient point.

ehpercy

How do any of those laws make gun owners felons overnight? The only way they would become felons would be by their own actions, then they are no longer law abiding gun owner.

prg45fan

@ehpercy

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/virginias-new-laws-could-turn-thousands-of-gun-owners-into-felons-overnight/

prg45fan

Hey @ehpercy, Is "diatribe" your word for the day percy? The "red flag" laws are a ripe to abuse anyone you disagree with or don't like. Come and Take it percy!

phydeaux994

On the day of the March the local D.C. channels had coverage starting on the morning shows, they had reporters there, and their noon news shows and extensive coverage at the evening news hour. They interviewed Marchers inside the Capitol grounds but spent more time outside with the armed protesters, allowing them to make their case.

HappySeller2014

No one cares. That is why no press coverage.

jsklinelga

Mr. Jeffers,

The typical negative responses,but I am afraid I might join them in part. Granted the absence of media coverage and the lack of the sensational seems a little frustrating. But isn't that the real message. These were responsible people. The gun owners of America. Law abiding. Peace oriented. Not the antifa or similar groups. (The real people responsible for Charlottesville.) I would wonder why they did not show up as they threatened but the answer is obvious.

But why mention Civil War? Somewhat counterproductive to the positive message of the rally. Just as it was hoped and prayed for the rally was forceful, but respectful and peaceful. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

awteam2000

... Our at least make sensible argument with a point.

awteam2000

And let’s not forget Heather Heyer was killed by a ‘white supremacist’ when he plowed his car into counter-protesters in Charlotte Virginia, not by Anti-fascist (antifa) or similar groups.

JSK, I don’t think it’s a good idea to tie racist protests to second amendment protest if you aren’t racist or think 2nd amendment advocates aren’t racist.

stjohn42

I personally did not see anything *except* his precious parade for two days, so it is unclear how much more coverage the writer expects. It is more likely that he is just another aggrieved, self-appointed constitutional scholar who is unhappy that the country contains people who disagree with him.

shiftless88

Mr. Jeffers. I am sure there are people in Virginia that feel disenfranchised but unless they are the "snowflakes" that the right keeps deriding, they will buck up and work through our system of government to address such grievances. We should note that the prior election in VA was explicitly focused on the actions that the government would take if the Dems were handed a victory, and they were handed a victory. So instead of patting yourselves on the back for managing to hold a rally without killing someone this year, why don't you work through the ballot box and the courts if you feel you are wronged? Why start to threaten a civil war? The South was wrong then, and you would be wrong now.

stjohn42

[thumbup]

awteam2000

I wonder if William knows that Maryland has far stronger gun control laws then Virginia.🤔

olefool

Read the Obits William..... Especially the one on yourself....

olefool

Remember Fort Sumpter??? Confederates fired the first shot and the rest is history.

Rockfish

Did the writer have his/her head in the sand? I saw plenty of media coverage. God bless the 2A.

Henry_Avery

OMG! This loon endorses a second civil war because he thinks some invisible man in the sky gave him the rights to own a gun.

I’m guessing Bill also played make believe and got all decked out in tactical gear when he attended this rally, thinking it looks “cool” to play dress up and call themselves a “militia”. Those cosplay dopes wouldn’t know the first thing about what it means to serve. What’s more, anointing your band of, whatever’s, a militia is not well-regulated.

Thewheelone

Jleftwich, The civil war started the moment the first person in human bondage stepped off the boat in colonial Virginia. Thankfully, that story ended with the destruction of slavery; I wonder and sometimes worry how this story will end. How will those heavily armed citizens react when someone tries to enforce the laws the Virginia legislature has passed. The sheriff in Culpeper County, Virginia said he will deputize thousands of gun owners there so they wouldn't lose their rights as they see them. The board of supervisors there voted to support the sheriff because the government is trying to take away their "God given rights." I would remind these folks that the second amendment was given to us by the founding fathers, not God as well as the idea that the Constitution is subject to change as needed, via the elastic clause they thoughtfully included when situations arise, just like this one.

hayduke2

Wheel - [thumbup] Wonder if they realize touting the " god given right" to own firearms actually refutes their claim.... As far as I know, God never mentioned gun ownership.

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, the rights are inherent, intrinsic, or inalienable, meaning that they cannot be denied as a part of something, and that something is being human with US citizenship. In the language of the time, such things were considered to be "granted by God as our Creator" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The inherent rights of US citizens are spelled out in the Constitution. While God Himself may not have carved the Bill of Rights into two tablets of stone, those rights delineated in the Constitution are immutable.

hayduke2

Sorry. Your take on it, doesn't make it so.

Jleftwich

"...those rights delineated in the Constitution are immutable."

There are local-level rules that override 2A all the time. Can't carry a weapon on school property, for instance.

gabrielshorn2013

Care to explain why you don't think so? Are you disputing the definition of the words? The language of the time? The historical context? The clear meaning of the 2A? DC v. Heller? The inherent right to self defense? The very Constitution itself?

https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/preamble-bill-of-rights.html

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

shiftless88

Gabe; I think you are conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

gabrielshorn2013

So jleftwich, do you consider all of the amendments to the constitution equal, or is the 2A less-important? Would the 3A also be less important if a Federal, State, or Local government made a law requiring quartering of troops? How about the 4th, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure? Could local LEOs raid your home without a warrant issued by a judge for probable cause? Could a local court convict you of a crime after a State or Federal court acquitted you (See 5A). And on, and on.

gabrielshorn2013

No, I clearly delineated each document. I referred to the Declaration as context for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Inherent rights were considered "God given" at the time. The Federalists didn't believe that is was necessary to specifically state what rights the government could not interfere with (note I didn't say that the government granted), because it was understood that those rights could not be violated. The anti-Federalists had little faith that the government would abide by such opinions, and therefore insisted that the rights be enumerated as a condition of ratifying the US Constitution. Turns out the anti-Federalists had it right. How many court cases have happened due to a violation of those rights? It was such a good idea that they added seventeen more.

hayduke2

Please provide the reference where such things were considered " granted by God as our Creator" Yes, the Declaration states "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, that deals solely with the right of self governance and not being ruled by a monarchy. To Broaden that interpretation is not what the framers were referencing, they were justifying the rebellion.

phydeaux994

“Federalists didn't believe that is was necessary to specifically state what rights the government could not interfere with (note I didn't say that the government granted), because it was understood that those rights could not be violated”.

good grief gab, you don’t have a clue what the “Federalists” believed or didn’t believe. I say they didn’t assume that any “Rights” were GOD Given and didn’t have to be written down. Read Scalia’s Opinion of D.C. vs. Heller, that’s what the 2nd Amendment means as of now and many Constitutional Scholars disagree with that 5-4 Opinion.

gabrielshorn2013

Please provide the reference where such things were considered " granted by God as our Creator" Yes, the Declaration states "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, that deals solely with the right of self governance and not being ruled by a monarchy. To Broaden that interpretation is not what the framers were referencing, they were justifying the rebellion.

Hay says: “Please provide the reference where such things were considered " granted by God as our Creator"”

Oh come on hay, do you think those founding documents came with a glossary of terms with definitions? They did not. However, do you think the meaning of the term “right” used in the Declaration suddenly changed its meaning a few years later? The Declaration states: “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Creator equals God in most people’s lexicon. Now the term Rights is defined in context, which are unalienable (cannot be taken away as they are granted by the Creator (a.k.a. “God”), and are above the purview of Men. So, if a “Right” is used in that context in the Declaration, why would you believe that the definition would change a scant few years later as written in the Bill of Rights? Furthermore, you will note that the Declaration states ”… that among these are Life…”, meaning that the three rights found in the Declaration are not an exhaustive list. There are others, as found in “The Bill of Rights”, and denying them is above the purview of men. We have added several more since the Bill of Rights was written (Amendments 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 26). We even have rights that were never enumerated in a document, such as “the right to privacy”, yet we all assume that it is an unalienable right. Who gave us that right? Is it inherent, or did the government grant it, therefore they can violate it at their pleasure?

gabrielshorn2013

phy, why don't you do some research and explain it to us? You seem to know exactly what the framers intended.

https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/history-bill-of-rights.html

gabrielshorn2013

BTW phy, are you saying that it is a collective right (as in the requirement to belong to a militia), or an individual right, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights? A group has freedom of speech or religion, but not the individual (1A)? A group cannot testify against them selves, but not the individual (5A)? A clubhouse cannot be searched without a warrant, but my house can (4A)? A group cannot be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, but you may be put on the rack (8A)? A group has the right to a faair and speedy trial, but you can languish in a prison cell for years without charges or trial (6A). As you can see, when put in that context, the assumption the 2A is a collective right is absurd.

shiftless88

There was over a decade between the two documents. Think of the changes in this country and our vocabulary over the past decade.

hayduke2

Sorry Gabe but the Constitution, which guides our Republic, does not mention God. And yes, I stand by the interpretation that those rights refer to not being ruled by a monarchy and were used to justify declaring independence from it - nothing else. You aren’t the only one with valid interpretations.

phydeaux994

gab, my response was intended to say that I could believe exactly the opposite of what you say and it would be just as meaningless. The only interpretations that matter of the Rights the Constitution gives are those given by the SCOTUS, hence, in the case of the 2nd A, that expressed by Scalia’s Opinion in D.C. vs. Heller. Peace.

gabrielshorn2013

Phy says: “good grief gab, you don’t have a clue what the “Federalists” believed or didn’t believe.”

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists…”

The link to the article is below. Good reading. I am assuming that you have a link to support your statement that “Constitutional Scholars disagree with that 5-4 Opinion.” Quantify “many”. Is it a majority? Don’t think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, my point is that, at that time, it was the norm to say that all things are given by “The Creator”, even in government documents. In modern times we believe that such rights are inherent, in that they are basic to the human condition, and cannot be eliminated by man. The term “human rights” come to mind. Some people believe in God, some people believe in a “higher power”, and some don’t believe in either, but we all agree that something called “a right” cannot be taken away. That was the point of the anti-Federalists in their insistence on enumerating such rights in the Bill of Rights.

phydeaux994

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/

One of many gab, even from Conservatives.

phydeaux994

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Even more interesting reading about the difficulty the framers had deciding on the wording of the 2nd A and how the whole debate was in the context of militias. Just sayin’.

gabrielshorn2013

And here is another view of the issue phy:

https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

https://reason.com/2019/01/22/supreme-courts-new-second-amendment-case/

phydeaux994

Another good one gab.

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/11874

I’ll look at yours.

hayduke2

So gabe, you are arguing that the Constitution and "rights" are a melding of the original language and influenced by current realities. I agree.

gabrielshorn2013

Hay says: "So gabe, you are arguing that the Constitution and "rights" are a melding of the original language and influenced by current realities. I agree."

Hay, that’s not what I am saying at all. The intent of the document does not change just because a term used in that document falls out of favor. The document must be read in its original context for the time period. Scalia was an originalist (as am I). If you want to change the meaning of the document, you must change the document itself, and not rely on word usage to change over time. You can do that by amendment (you know what you need to do), or a Constitutional Convention (you know what to do here too). My statement actually supports my position. Something that would have been labeled as God-given is now considered unalienable or inherent. All three terms are synonymous, and meant as beyond man’s authority to revoke.

phydeaux994

If you read a couple of the links I posted jsk, you would learn that one of the main complaints against Scalia’s Opinion was by Conservatives/Originalists who say he abandoned his Originalist position and “made new Law” in the DC vs. Heller decision.

phydeaux994

Right now Scalia’s Opinion defines the Second Amendment and it doesn’t help your case for carrying guns outside the home, i.e. concealed carry, or owning any firearm you want to, i.e. assault weapons (a catch-all label I know). The case for reasonable gun control is open. Sorry.

awteam2000

I think you may want to rethink your disenfranchised argument, comparing the right of gun ownership to the right of human ownership. That’s a non-starter.

Jleftwich

Good lord. The “first” civil war started because the south felt “disenfranchised” ?!? Disenfranchised over OWNING human beings?!

There was a lot of misinformation spread online (go figure) leading up to the rally in Richmond. I would suggest reading actual, reliable sources. Even the republicans in the Va legislature are putting forth bills to address gun control.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/the-gun-bills-that-are-a-big-focus-for-new-democratic-led-virginia-general-assembly/

Thewheelone

I meant to address Mr. Jeffers letter, not Jleftwichs' comments...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.