Virginia elected a Democratic governor and legislature for the first time in a quarter-century, and when they proposed moderate gun control legislation, the right-wing snowflakes lost their shit and started threatening to take their ball home. They’re raising the specter of a full-blown civil war against what they claim is tyranny.
Bad enough, but at least when their gggggrandfathers did it back in 1861, they used florid Victorian language. Now, they’re trying to either cloak their treasonous talk, or make light of it, by calling rebellion against the duly-elected government “the boogaloo.” I presume this meme arose from the “thought” Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo. :rolleyes:
So to that faction of Virginians who are bandying about the fucking boogaloo with any thing but unalloyed condemnation: fuck you too, electric boogaloo! Dems get gerrymandered and "voter fraud"ed out of electoral victory in state after state, and when they do manage to overcome all that, take office, and propose legislation that’s survived judicial review and that they didn’t hide during the campaign, the opposition tries to win anyway by threatening civil war if they dare to enforce that legislation. :mad: Why bother having an election at all, why not just give all the keys to the Republicans and appoint them to office permanently? :rolleyes:
And the hand-wringers who claim to not support “boogaloo” but ostentatiously and repeatedly express concern about it if the horrible evil legislation is implemented – I’m looking at you, Phil Van Cleave and your "Leave it alone. Walk away.” in the article :dubious: – don’t escape unscathed. IMHO, they want all the deterrent effect of scaring off the Virginia government from adopting legislation they oppose without any of the backlash or personal cost of taking a pro-civil-war stance.
I agree: fuck 'em. Let the violent yokels start shooting over their fantasy boogeymen bullshit. When they get shot dead or sent to life sentences by the authorities, we will have a modern day example of what happens when rednecks follow through on their terroristic threats. With them out of the way, maybe the rest of the public can have a reasonable debate about how to govern themselves.
I don’t care if they come out here and burn my house and shoot me dead, my position will still be: fuck ‘em. We don’t make decisions in this country based on terroristic threats. It is too bad the bumpkins’ message isn’t resonating with the people-who-know-what-they’re-talking-about community enough that they can win elections in VIRGINIA, but them’s the breaks.
Hell, I don’t care if the dipshits WIN a civil war. I, house burned and shot dead, will mock them from the Great Beyond as their gap-toothed new Confederate nation staggers along for a few weeks or months with no electricity or running water or internet because all the people who know what they’re talking about are dead, followed by the redneck realization that the Chinese occupiers are 100x more tyrranical than Democrats, and that there is no possible hope of ever voting China’s army out of power.
I hope I made that clear. I said fuck 'em. Go ahead and come here and shoot me first, you ignorant fuckwit Confederate terrorists.
Historically, civil wars are not known to be announced - or even identified until things get bloody for a while. It’s even been argued the American Revolution was this nation’'s first civil war.
The “some” of “thousands” that Lois Beckett alludes to in her piece is hardly cause for chest-thumping, or even a pitting. The progressive left and religious right both prefer authoritarian solutions and laws when enforcing their ideals and mores on their opposition and a diverse society at large. Things could get a whole lot messier before people come to realize top down solutions are impractical, and often unsustainable.
The importance of stressing the sameness of “both sides” in a thread about right wing 2A enthusiast death threat issuers and hysterical false premise reactionary civil war fomenting terrorist rebels and their reinforcement by out-of-state white nationalist militia allies can’t be overstated.
And when the next school house massacre happens, the gun loons will avoid taking responsibility for enforcing the law and want to prosecute the school’s resource officer instead. They worship at the alter of violence while showing contempt toward representative democracy.
Moderate? The VA state Democrats are proposing laws that amount to “you can’t own any guns the government decides it doesn’t want you to have”. That pretty much shits on gun ownership as a fundamental right, and the Dems don’t care if the troglodytes object, they plan to cram it down the throats of the populace because what’s “right” trumps what the hoi polloi want- which pretty much shits on the idea of democracy. When local law enforcement proclaimed that they didn’t want to have to be the ones to enforce these laws, the Dems declared they’d have the VA National Guard do it- and then the Guard declared that they didn’t want to have to either.
Despite deep doubts about the constitutionality of such laws, the Democratic majority is falling back on the old authoritarian mantra of “THE Law is THE Law!”. I wonder if the African-American legislators in favor of this would have had a similar attitude during the civil disobedience campaigns of the Civil Rights era.
I’m pretty sure law enforcement wasn’t afraid to enforce the law during the Civil Rights era. That’s kind of what civil disobedience means, you break the law but remain civilized and non-violent.
It’s almost like Conservative Gun Huggers only support the police when they’re arresting brown folks. Sure, throw some little brown kid in a cage because their parents broke the law… it’s their fault, they broke the law! Attempt to enforce the law on some white skinned backwoods yokel? It’s time to shoot the cops because they’re going to take away Mah Guns.
This is why I don’t believe any Conservative whey they claim to love this country, or respect the law, or respect anything but themselves.
If they would just give some proof that they’ve read any amendment aside from the second, it’d be a great start, but they’re the ones who cheer when Trump calls the press “the enemy of the people”.
How much overlap is there between these capital-p “Patriots” who never read the Constitution, and capital-c “Christians” who are happy the homeless are dying on the streets, that sick people are going bankrupt or dying of lack of care, who approve slut-shaming women by the sort of men who brag about sexually-assaulting women, who gleefully rejoice in rejecting desperate immigrants and sending them back to certain death, who happily and boldly accuse honest people of the crimes they themselves have committed, and who lie so constantly and aggressively that they make discourse impossible?
“The law is the law” is also the mantra of the Trumpists regarding people crossing the border without permission. Doesn’t matter that some people were brought here by their parents when they were still children, doesn’t matter how much they’ve been a productive member of society since, not even by serving in the armed forces, illegal is illegal. :dubious:
*It’s fucking disingenuous to say that “the Dems declared they’d have the VA National Guard do it.” One legislator said it, and I will presume you’re not stupid enough to think one legislator can do fuck-all by himself, much less speak for the entire legislature, much less speak for the governor or the executive branch. The governor can activate the Guard but he never said he’d do so, and the Guard confirmed that they haven’t been asked to do so by the governor or his staff.
*The voters who elected this governor and legislature knowing their stance on gun control are also the populace, the hoi polloi, or whatever other term you want to use to imply that the Democratic electorate aren’t the “real” people while the gun control opponents bandying about the prospect of civil war are. :rolleyes:
*The right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, no more than the fundamental rights in the First Amendment are. The phrase “shall make no law” in the First doesn’t give one the right to slander someone, or to commit wire fraud, or to kill someone as a religious sacrifice, why should “shall not be infringed” in the Second mean that anything goes? The case where the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the states, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), also said:
Did the elected officials actually propose any of these measure before the elections? The impression I got was “Suprise suckas, we’ve got a MANDATE now!”
And to everyone who responded with sarcasm, ridicule and contempt: Fuck you. Fuck you with fish hooks. Fuck you with fish hooks coated with fire ant venom.
