by Kerry Dougherty

Why is anyone surprised that the governor of New Mexico has decided that a spike in crime constitutes a public health emergency that warrants suspension of 2nd Amendment rights of the people to carry a firearm?

When Americans merrily surrendered their civil rights three years ago during a health emergency, could they not foresee a perpetual state of emergencies, with tyrannical despots infringing on constitutional rights using the flimsiest of excuses?

I hate to say “I told you so,” but some of us tried to sound the alarm in the winter of 2020, but too many Americans were hiding under their beds to listen to us.

Now this:

On Friday, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, declared a public health emergency in Albuquerque and nearby Bernalillo County citing high crime rates and issued a 30-day ban on the carrying of firearms. She said she was likely to extend the order.

“I have emergency powers,” Grisham crowed. “Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it’s an emergency!”

Never mind that of the five shooting incidents Grisham cited when suspending the Second Amendment, only two were in the Albuquerque area and chances are neither would have been thwarted by her unconstitutional ban.

She mentioned the death of a 13-year-old girl shot in July, but that child was killed by a 14-year-old friend. She referred to a 5-year-old girl who was shot in August and was the victim of a drive-by shooting and an 11-year-old boy who was shot outside an Albuquerque minor league baseball stadium who was the victim of a road rage incident.

Grisham also talked about two mass shootings. Reason magazine explained:

One of the two mass shootings that Grisham mentioned was carried out by an 18-year-old high school student, who killed three people in Farmington, a city in San Juan County, on May 15. The other shooting, which killed three people in Red River, a town in Taos County, on May 28, “stemmed from a confrontation among gang members” according to the ABC affiliate in Albuquerque.

Grisham knows that stripping gun rights from law-abiding Americans is unlikely to save a single life. She’s testing the water. If Grisham gets away with this unconstitutional move, look for other governors to play follow-the-leader.

It wasn’t all bad news coming from the governor’s mansions this weekend.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced that he was granting a full and complete pardon to Scott Smith, the Loudoun County father who – at a school board meeting – was hauled out and arrested for disorderly conduct after school officials denied that his daughter has been sexually assaulted in a public school bathroom.

Meanwhile, the perpetrator was quietly moved to another school, where he assaulted another girl, while school officials continued to deny any knowledge of the crime.

“I spoke with Mr. Smith on Friday, and I had the privilege of telling Mr. Smith that I will pardon him, and we did that on Friday,” Youngkin said. “We righted a wrong. He should’ve never been prosecuted here. This was a dad standing up for his daughter.”

“His daughter had been sexually assaulted in the bathroom of a school, and no one was doing anything about it,” he continued adding that the school superintendent had “covered it up.”

“Mr. Smith did what any father would do, what any parent would do, which is stand up for their child,” Youngkin said. “This was gross miscarriage of justice.”

Frankly, I believe that Mr. Smith should receive a commendation from the governor for remarkable restraint.

Had that been my daughter, watching school officials tell brazen lies about what happened would have launched me into orbit.

It was this case and others like it that launched Glenn Youngkin’s successful campaign for governor. His emphasis on parental rights is a winner.

Not only did he pardon Smith, but his administration is cracking down on defiant school districts that refuse to enforce the new requirement that parents be informed if their child claims to be transgendered.

The far-left believes there is only one appropriate, government-approved reaction to news that a child may be transgendered: parents must rejoice and offer “gender affirming care.”

News flash: it is not the job of parents to affirm every whim of their children. Kids belong to their parents not to the government.

The GOP has a winning campaign issue nationally and in state houses if they are smart enough to stop rehashing the 2020 election and make the upcoming contests about parents’ rights.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

98 responses to “A Tale of Two Governors”

  1. When Republicans decided that 1.1 million deaths and over 6 million hospitalizations from Covid-19 were not a big deal and that conservatives were willing to accept more deaths and more hospitalizations in order to not wear a mask or get a vaccination, then Republicans not only gave up being the party of life but minimize any conservative concern for suicides, drug overdoses, or deaths due to crime.

    If 1.1 million deaths from Covid-19 are insignificant and not worth government action, then a spike of 12k homicides per year is just a rounding error.

    When did being a conservative change from being the “eat your vegetables” party to the “I’m not going to eat my vegetables and you cannot make me” party?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Setting aside there is zero relevance in your post to the article to which you posted it. You’re still not even close on your assumptions as to what “conservatives” think.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        You know Dems are frantic when they retreat to COVID panic. Wow.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          yep. this will cost them and it should.

          1. So 1.1 million deaths from Covid-19 is nothing but an increase of 12k in homicides is a national tragedy. Explain that. But then again, conservatives do not want to do anything about crime except apparently be hard on blacks.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            No I agree with you but if this is a response to the sex behavior – the two are very different.

          3. Not Today Avatar

            they want to be hard on black PEOPLE because guns aren’t;tr, apparently, a problem.

        2. Thanks for reinforcing the idea that conservatives believe that 1.1 million deaths was no big deal. If 1.1 million deaths is nothing then why care about crime, accidents, overdoses, or suicides.

          But then again, a single sexual assault in Loudoun County is just so much more important even if the facts have to be ignored.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Can you stop with the non-sequiturs for a moment.

            Your wildly baseless claims as well as facture inaccurate data is just nauseating.

            ‘But then again, a single sexual assault in Loudoun County is just so much more important even if the facts have to be ignored.”

            Thus far in this comment thread, you’ve outed yourself as being pro dictator, big government and now you don’t seem to care about sexual assaults.

          2. Every time conservative cheer a governor or politician who was Covid-19 defiant, defend healthcare workers who were Covid-19 defiant, or who want to end state and local health departments like Missouri, those conservative let everyone know how the really feel while those conservatives refuse to reconcile their state beliefs with their actual beliefs.

            The father who has pardoned by Youngkin had had a private meeting with school officials about his daughters sexual assault before the school board meeting. That is public knowledge but the article refuses to acknowledge that.

          3. So what if they did meet with him in private? They subsequently lied through their teeth about it in a public meeting, which was incredibly disrespectful to the victim.

            And apparently that’s okay with you.

            You have an interesting moral compass, sir.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            First let me preface this comment with the following, I do not in any way shape or form take anyone serious who up-votes their own comment. Seeing as that’s a practice you partake in, you’re keen on gaslighting as well.

            “Every time conservative cheer a governor or politician who was Covid-19 defiant, defend healthcare workers who were Covid-19 defiant, or who want to end state and local health departments like Missouri, those conservative let everyone know how the really feel while those conservatives refuse to reconcile their state beliefs with their actual beliefs.”

            Heaven’s to Betsy, how dare someone cheer on someone for exercising “Liberty”. I mean that’s a core tenet of our Nation.

            Again, you’ve demonstrated you haven’t an iota of a clue what “conservatives” think.

            “The father who has pardoned by Youngkin had had a private meeting with school officials about his daughters sexual assault before the school board meeting. That is public knowledge but the article refuses to acknowledge that.”

            That somehow changes the fact that his daughter was sexually assaulted? That somehow changes the fact that it was covered up, to which the former superintendent is now on trial for?

            No, what is being “disregarded” is your multiple attempts o interject that the victim had a previous sexual relationship with the felon. That is somehow negates the fact that when she said “no” he persisted, you’re using that as an excuse. It’s never an excuse, “no, means, no” that is unless you think it’s okay.

          5. Well, I cannot take anyhone seriously who blocks quotes text from a post that is literally two inches away on the page. What value does block quoting text provide. What is the reason for the block quoting like it is 1988 on usenet.

            And repeating that no one can know what conservatives think when everyone is taking that conservative say at face value. Conservative do not care about 1.1 million deaths. Given that, it is impossible to take any conservative seriously when they express concern or demand policy changes for anything that has caused or is causing much fewer deaths.

            And if one is really concerned about sexual assaults in public schools, then how many occurred in Loudoun county schools that year or the year before of the year after. The only real difference is that the non-Custodial father may a fool of himself at a school board meeting and activist jumped on the issue to troll Democrats. It is hard to take conservatives seriously on sexual assault when conservatives want to forced rape women to carry their rapist child to term.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Well, I cannot take [sic] anyhone seriously who blocks quotes text from a post that is literally two inches away on the page. What value does block quoting text provide. What is the reason for the block quoting like it is 1988 on usenet.”

            Well, first off there buckoo, you don’t know what a block quote is, because you keep misusing the term. Second, I don’t know what you’re obsession with bashing the 80’s is, it’s really rather sad at this point.

            “And repeating that no one can know what conservatives think when everyone is taking that conservative say at face value.” This statement is nonsensical, is that you VP Harris?

            “Conservative do not care about 1.1 million deaths. Given that, it is impossible to take any conservative seriously when they express concern or demand policy changes for anything that has caused or is causing much fewer deaths.”

            A generalized statement, that is nothing more than a party talking point. It’s not even evidence based.

            “And if one is really concerned about sexual assaults in public schools, then how many occurred in Loudoun county schools that year or the year before of the year after. The only real difference is that the non-Custodial father may a fool of himself at a school board meeting and activist jumped on the issue to troll Democrats.”

            That is an example of an argument from ignorance. That’s also you attacking the victim’s father and justifying the CA prosecuting someone for no other reason than they aren’t of your opinion (otherwise known as fascism, which you also seem to be down with).

            ” It is hard to take conservatives seriously on sexual assault when conservatives want to forced rape women to carry their rapist child to term”

            Again, you don’t have a blooming clue what being conservative means. It’s not a political party, which is fairly obviously what you’re attempting to make it be. It’s ideal, it can be expressed by anyone no matter their party affiliation.

            Also, you don’t want to go down that road either. For 50 years Roe sat as bad legal precedence, it had 50 years to be correct into Law. It wasn’t, even Justice Ginsburg told you it was bad reasoning, the case she represented at that time was more sound. Beyond that those whom you align with, held no regard for the restrictions set by Roe, so you don’t want Roe, you want unfettered abortion, you want you use it as birth control. It’s not, it is the very last resort when all else fails. 15 weeks is the std in every other developed country you like to point to as having the answer, yet that’s not good enough. As for me, if you want an abortion and it’s within the legal limits go for it, I’m just not paying for it.

            Also, all your comments are nothing more than red herrings. They serve no purpose, they aren’t about the article, they are about your opinion and unequivocally poor ability to critically think.

          7. More and more pointless block quotes. Does one reply by copying into a word processor and then copy and paste the entire thing back. What a pointless wasted effort to make a point. Of course, that implies that one is trying to make a point rather than just troll or nitpick.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar

            “More and more pointless block quotes.”

            Again, you clearly don’t know that “block quote” is a specific item.

            I’d also like to take a moment to point out, instead of responding to the merit of the message you’re attacking me (thus render your response an ad hom attack).

            “Of course, that implies that one is trying to make a point rather than just troll or nitpick.”

            Clearly you again don’t know what a troll is either.

          9. So what if they did meet with him in private? They subsequently lied through their teeth about it in a public meeting, which was incredibly disrespectful to the victim.

            And apparently that’s okay with you.

            You have an interesting moral compass, sir.

        3. Matt Adams Avatar

          Now you’ve really gone and done it, he’s busted out the “racist” trope.

      2. As Covid-19 showed, conservatives do not care about others, do not care about having higher death rates or medical spending rates just as long as the individual conservative is not bothered. That is why so many conservatives are working against all public health laws and environmental laws.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Another non-sequitur.

          You again have no idea what “conservatives” believe, you make things up to fit your narrative.

          Your answer for everything by your own admission is big government, which is never the answer.

          I don’t think you want to bring up NIMBY at all, it won’t work out well for you.

    2. But we’ve learned those 1.1 million deaths were NOT due TO C-19 — it happened with C-19.

      1. Not true at all. If one uses CY2019, there were more than 1.1 million additional deaths in 2020, 2021, and 2022. It was not until the spring of 2023 when the death rate finally returned to pre-pandemic level. But keep telling yourself that those who died deserved to die because they are old, unhealthy, or both. Such a view makes the party of life look like raving hypocrites just like they are hypocrites in caring about deaths from crime or opioids but not caring about infectious disease deaths.

        1. “those who died deserved to die because they are old, unhealthy, or both”

          That’s in fact primarily who Covid killed. No one has said they “deserved” to die but you.

          Despite your assertions neither masks or vaccines did squat to prevent the spread of the disease.

          Vaccines arguably tended to make the disease more survivable for us geezers who caught it. They did not prevent disease. Also arguably vaccine side effects have hurt more little kids with very low Covid fatality rates than they saved.

          Democrat Cuomo killed more people than anyone else by putting Covid patients in nursing homes. You’re on thin ice trying to make it a partisan issue.

          In retrospect the Great Barrington statement that advocated concentrating our efforts on protecting seniors and the unhealthy rather than draconian measures for the whole country had a lot of merit. At the time it got the Docs who issued it ostracized, demonized and repressed, largely by Dems.

          Again, trying to make our mishandling of Covid a partisan issue is at best foolish.

          1. There is no need to block cut ans paste from the post. Just write a declarative sentence. And many have implied that only the weak and unneeded died. That is why so many conservatives make the point that only the elderly or those with comorbidities had the highest increased death rates. However, that is very different than claiming that the death rate did not go up and that deaths were just reclassified as Covid-19 deaths. Such a claim means that every hospital is the U.S. was lying.

          2. I sometimes quote briefly from what I am responding to. That comes both from having responses sometimes ending up far removed from the source in vigorous discussions, and occasionally having original posters subsequently edit their remarks to eliminate/change what I was responding to. Both conditions make providing context helpful to the discussion. Your 13 words I quoted hardly seem a “block quote” that obstructs as you describe it.

            Covid, like most pathogens (and predators), is opportunistic. It goes after the old and infirm. It is your characterization that those are, as you put it “unneeded” (there, I’ve quoted you again).

            You make a completely unsupported leap to a conclusion about why some people, including, but not restricted to, conservatives, have remarked on the objectively observable fact that old and/or infirm people have made up the bulk of excess covid deaths.

            The essence of behaviorism is that we can usually objectively describe behavior but that it is often much harder to correctly ascribe what caused the behavior. Your characterizations are marvelous illustrations of that concept, common errors in ascribing motivation, and more generally the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions. Congrats.

            If you look at annual US deaths, they unquestionably went up dramatically. However, equally clearly, some deaths of people with Covid have been mischaracterized as deaths from Covid. Your conflation of those issues to jump to the grandiose accusation “that every hospital in the U.S. was lying” (there I’ve quoted you again) is profoundly mistaken.

          3. In 2020, 2021, and 2022, the total deaths in every age group went up compared to 2019. Covid-19 killed across all age groups. To believe that those below 60 were exempt from the risk of death and hospitalization (something the covid=19 defiant never count) is clearly false. And the higher the community spread the higher the chance that those who are elderly or had comorbities were going to become infected and die.

            If one looks at the death rates among the states, the states that were the most Covid-19 defiant such as Tennesse, Arizona, and Alabama had the highest death rates while states like Maine (that has the highest average age of any state) were in the bottom ten of states.

            To believe that the U.S. could have ignored Covid-19 (something that more than 50% of the population would have refused to do) and the death rate would not have been higher shows how unserious the covid-19 defiant were. But then again, it is hard to argue facts and data with those who throw hissy fits when asked to be responsible. And no amount of playing word games makes up from the unserious response of those who were covid-19 defiant.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yes. Clearly some folks BELIEVE that we don’t really need to do anything with regard to contagious diseases other than let them run their course and the more vulnerable stay away from places where people congregate.

            I fully expect the next big contagious disease , conservatives will vociferously oppose most if not all COVID-type measures to respond to it.

            THe GOP/conservatives have moved more and more to an anti-science party IMO.

          5. I joke that the conservative party has gone from being the “Eat your vegetables” party to the “I’m not going to eat my vegetables and you can’t make me” party.
            The future of pandemic will be how high or low the death rate is per 100 infections. In 2020 the death rate was above 1% and slowly went down. That is something that Covid-19 defiant have forgotten. If the death rate in the next pandemic is 5% or higher, being defiant will not be acceptable.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar

            “But then again, it is hard to argue facts and data with those who throw hissy fits when asked to be responsible.”

            In 2019 the morbidity rate from the flu was a follows:

            5-17 yrs 0.3%
            18-49 yrs 1.9%
            50-64 yrs 9.8%
            65+ yrs 29.4%

            https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html

            That’s data, something which you’ve never provided to validate any of your claims or statements.

          7. The total deaths from flu in 2019 was 25k per the CDC data compared to 35 million cases. That would have been the uncertainty of Covid-19 deaths in 2020 and 2021 given that the increase in total deaths in those years after significantly higher than the more than 300k deaths per year. And once again, how many died from the flu versus dying with the flu to use the stupid logic of the covid-19 defiant.,

            And once again, there is no reason to block quote when one can just write a good declarative sentence that states what one wants everyone to take away from the data instead of the rude, pointless block quote and then citing data when to conclusion. Try harder.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar

            “In 2020, 2021, and 2022, the total deaths in every age group went up compared to 2019. Covid-19 killed across all age groups. To believe that those below 60 were exempt from the risk of death and hospitalization (something the covid=19 defiant never count) is clearly false. And the higher the community spread the higher the chance that those who are elderly or had comorbities [sic]] were going to become infected and die.”

            Cite your data or again, it’s just your opinion. It’s a pretty simple concept, you can just make statements without evidence thereof, which is something you’ve done repeatedly on this very thread.

            “But then again, it is hard to argue facts and data with those who throw hissy fits when asked to be responsible.”

            Problem being, you’re not arguing facts and data, you’re making statements that are not backed by either of those items.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            Indeed. Now, more than a few folks deny that contagion can rage through a population infecting many of all ages and kill them (or accept that as occurring), as we have seen over history.

            It appears that some folks consider restrictions and required precautions to reduce the spr4ead of contagious disease to be unacceptable with regard to their own “liberty” and “right” to do what they want to do.

            It appears that some want whatever precautions are recommended are left up to the individual to decide to include none or minimal and let things play out on that basis.

            Others who do have concerns will have to decide if they need to not go where many people congregate and may not use any precautions.

            If contagion does rage, many will refuse to go where there are others who choose to not take precautions including businesses, schools, medical facilities, govt offices, etc unless those facilities institute rules for access to the facility – like having to be vaccinated, wearing a mask, maintaining distance from each other, etc.

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I’ll soon be in the Land of Enchantment for a week and I feel so much safer now. Hey, this is just another practice run for the biggie still lurking in our future, the Climate Emergency with all its controls on our energy use, travel choices, dietary intake, even clothing purchases.

    Virginians got a good glimpse of our possible future yesterday. A Democratic candidate in a major swing district was revealed as a paid porn actress. She is part of the party sending a unified message to parents: “Shut the &^%$ up and let us run the schools and stock the libraries, let us guide your kids on their sexual identifies. We know better than you.” What a surprise the parents push back. The Dems want her in the House all the more now.

    My optimism about this election is back and strong now.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Enjoy New Mexico. If you never been there, you should include Santa Fe and Taos in your itinerary.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Don’t forget Chaco Canyon. I know it is a tourist trap, but the 4 corners are cool. You can be in four states at the same time.

        1. White’s Ferry is interesting too, and the Moki Dugway is white knuckling.

    2. It is strange that conservatives have decided that “stop and frisk” is no longer legal. When did accepting a higher homicide rate, suicide rate, and mass shooting rate become just the price we pay for having a second amendment?

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        I suppose at the same time that America accepted 42,725 traffic deaths in 2022 without either banning driving or lowering the national speed limit to 15 mph.

        There are two processes to amend the US Constitution. Both are spelled out in the Constitution.

        If you believe that the freedoms granted by the second amendment are not worth the consequences of granting those freedoms – amend the US Constitution.

        1. Look at the deaths per million passenger miles, the number of has been dropping since the 1950’s due to better roads, better safety systems, and cracking down of drunk driving. Remember when cars did not have seat belts?
          But then again, it is amazing that conservatives are willing to tolerate a much higher homicide rate compared to the rest of the first world while claiming that guns make them safe. Considering that concealed carry is regulated in several states, New Mexico should be able to regulate it.

          1. Considering that concealed carry is regulated in several states, New Mexico should be able to regulate it.

            …through legislation, not by gubernatorial/dictatorial decree.

          2. But the claim that limiting concealed carry or open carry is a violation of the second amendment may not be true.

          3. I did not make that claim that regulating concealed carry is a violation of the second amendment – but it is certainly a restriction.

            And duly considered and adopted legislation is the way we restrict rights in this country, not executive fiat.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Teddy007 WayneS 5 minutes ago
            But the claim that limiting concealed carry or open carry is a violation of the second amendment may not be true.”

            That’s not the claim at all, a Governor cannot arbitrarily restrict individuals rights granted per the Constitution. A Legislature passes laws to impact 2nd Amendment rights and they are subject to Judicial review. The former is not regulation, that’s called being a dictator, which clearly you’re okay with.

          5. From the STate of New Mexico: Residents must have the CHL, and nonresidents must have a valid concealed carry license from a state that New Mexico honors. New Mexico forbids residents and nonresidents from concealed carrying any weapon other than the one they have been licensed for, and they may not carry more than one.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Teddy007 7 minutes ago
            From the STate of New Mexico: Residents must have the CHL, and nonresidents must have a valid concealed carry license from a state that New Mexico honors. New Mexico forbids residents and nonresidents from concealed carrying any weapon other than the one they have been licensed for, and they may not carry more than one.”

            That is a non-sequitur, is has nothing to do with what the Governor has done.

            In NM is it legal for anyone age 19 and above to open carry (she suspended that). CHL isn’t specific to a firearm, it’s specific to the individual (you’re better off not siting Gifford’s, they don’t tend to know what they are talking about). The only thing they managed to get correct, was you can only carry as singular firearm concealed at one time.

            NM current has reciprocity with the following states:
            Alaska
            Arizona
            Arkansas
            Colorado
            Delaware
            Florida
            Idaho
            Kansas
            Michigan
            Mississippi
            Missouri
            Nebraska
            Nevada
            North Carolina
            North Dakota
            Ohio
            Oklahoma
            South Carolina
            Tennessee
            Texas
            Virginia
            West Virginia
            Wyoming

          7. Please stop block quoting from text that is part of the thread. It serves no purposes and is just an irritant.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Teddy007 a minute ago
            Please stop block quoting from text that is part of the thread. It serves no purposes and is just an irritant.”

            I couldn’t care less what irritates you, it serves the purpose of directly addressing your thought and keeping in a logical fashion. You complain all the time about the manner in which I comment, but frankly I’m not obligated to modify the manner in which I comment for you.

            I notice that you didn’t address what I state and went after how I made that statement, that is your standard.

          9. Please stop block quoting from text that is part of the thread. It serves no purposes and is just an irritant.

            When threads get crowded it can become difficult to figure out which responses goes with which comment. Quoting the portion of a comment one is responding to can help avoid misunderstandings.

          10. I think New Mexico does license a specific handgun to its permits.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar

            Not that I could find on their website, which given their reciprocity with other states doesn’t seem enforceable.

          12. Interesting. It leaves me wondering what they mean by “the [weapon] they have been licensed for”.

          13. Matt Adams Avatar

            Yeah, their process seemed straight forward. I think the only state that would operate like that would be Illinois.

          14. or Massachusetts.

          15. New Mexico forbids residents and nonresidents from concealed carrying any weapon other than the one they have been licensed for, and they may not carry more than one.
            From the STate of New Mexico: Residents must have the CHL, and nonresidents must have a valid concealed carry license from a state that New Mexico honors. New Mexico forbids residents and nonresidents from concealed carrying any weapon other than the one they have been licensed for, and they may not carry more than one.

            Okay. What does that have to do with the governor’s decree?

            But since you brought it up, there is a major discrepancy in that particular provision of their law.

            New Mexico honors concealed handgun permits issued by Virginia. However, Virginia does not license firearms in any way, shape or form, and does not tie its concealed handgun permits to a specific weapon.

            So, how can New Mexico prevent someone with a Virginia concealed handgun permit from “concealed carrying any weapon other than the one they have been licensed for”?

          16. DJRippert Avatar

            But we accept highway deaths as a consequence of our desire for the freedom that driving provides.

            I assume you don’t see gun ownership as a freedom equal in value to driving.

            That’s your opinion.

          17. Lots of rule and regulations are attached to driving and the state through the administrative state has been working for decades to lower the death and injury rates from traffic accidents. That has actually been achieved rather than say that seat belts or air bags take away ones freedom and need to be ended.

    3. DJRippert Avatar

      I really have no quarrel with sex workers so long as they operate of their own free will, are adults, and limit who can see their activities to other consenting adults. I don’t think that should be illegal nor should the participants be prosecuted.

      I might not vote for such a person based on their career but I might not vote for a tort lawyer (i.e. ambulance chaser) based on his or her career either.

      However, I now understand that the candidate in question is trying to sue people under Virginia’s revenge porn statutes.

      So, you film yourself having sex. You upload the film to a public website. People watch. You ask viewers to provide monetary tips to see you perform sex acts the tipper specifies. Then, when somebody sees the public website and points out your activity – you sue them for violation of revenge porn laws?

      What is it that my Dad used to say? “They that dance have to pay the piper.”

      I would vote against this candidate not because she tried to sell videos of herself having sex but because she lacks the guts to admit her actions and is trying to weaponize an inapplicable law against whoever found her out.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I agree. She needs the boot planted firmly on her backside … geeze…..

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          You’ll have to tip her to see that, Larry.

      2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Pundits could have a field day with the folk song “Oh Susanna”.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Well, if your party manages to turn an expression like “pro-life” toxic, there there’s more wrong than just terminology.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      “Well, if your party manages to turn an expression like “pro-life” toxic”

      Remind me. For which party is “pro-life” toxic?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          might have to explain that I suspect… 😉

Leave a Reply