New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

New Democrat Virginia leadership attacked the 2nd Amendment, now going after 1st...

Dino

Russian Asset
This is pretty disgraceful., It is going to be enforced in a highly selective and politicized way.
Of course, it should probably be defeated and burned to cinders upon the first judicial challenge it receives.
Anyone else think they'd support a bill that bans "indecent" criticism of public officials?
Imagine if Trump tried to enforce any such law (would earn that Nazi title)

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/01/23/va-legislators-introduce-anti-free-speech-bill-to-criminalize-online-criticism-of-government-officials/

After Virginia’s recent anti-second amendment legislation was successfully passed, the state legislature is now going after the first amendment. Virginia House Bill No. 1627 was introduced on January 16 which could effectively make it illegal to criticize government officials anywhere in the state. The Bill reads in part under section 18.2-152.7:1, “Harassment by computer; penalty,”

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.


The bill does not define what it means to “coerce, intimidate, or harass” any person which leaves it open to subjective interpretation. Many Virginia citizens are concerned about the proposed bill, including Tina Freitas, the wife of Republican Virginia House of Delegates, Nick Freitas, who asked on Facebook, “What is considered harassment?”
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
This is pretty disgraceful., It is going to be enforced in a highly selective and politicized way.
Of course, it should probably be defeated and burned to cinders upon the first judicial challenge it receives.
Anyone else think they'd support a bill that bans "indecent" criticism of public officials?
Imagine if Trump tried to enforce any such law (would earn that Nazi title)

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/01/23/va-legislators-introduce-anti-free-speech-bill-to-criminalize-online-criticism-of-government-officials/

After Virginia’s recent anti-second amendment legislation was successfully passed, the state legislature is now going after the first amendment. Virginia House Bill No. 1627 was introduced on January 16 which could effectively make it illegal to criticize government officials anywhere in the state. The Bill reads in part under section 18.2-152.7:1, “Harassment by computer; penalty,”

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.


The bill does not define what it means to “coerce, intimidate, or harass” any person which leaves it open to subjective interpretation. Many Virginia citizens are concerned about the proposed bill, including Tina Freitas, the wife of Republican Virginia House of Delegates, Nick Freitas, who asked on Facebook, “What is considered harassment?”
And when they say, " obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act", exactly how is obscene, vulgar, profane, indecent, immoral, going to be defined?

By whom?

Why them?

Even just a "suggestion", mind you. Who gets to say something is a suggestion of something? If it isn't actually stated wouldn't it then be "suggested" in the opinion of someone but perhaps not others?

So whose opinion would be the law for everyone?

You are correct, this is not good to say the least.
 
This is pretty disgraceful., It is going to be enforced in a highly selective and politicized way.
Of course, it should probably be defeated and burned to cinders upon the first judicial challenge it receives.
Anyone else think they'd support a bill that bans "indecent" criticism of public officials?
Imagine if Trump tried to enforce any such law (would earn that Nazi title)

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/01/23/va-legislators-introduce-anti-free-speech-bill-to-criminalize-online-criticism-of-government-officials/

After Virginia’s recent anti-second amendment legislation was successfully passed, the state legislature is now going after the first amendment. Virginia House Bill No. 1627 was introduced on January 16 which could effectively make it illegal to criticize government officials anywhere in the state. The Bill reads in part under section 18.2-152.7:1, “Harassment by computer; penalty,”

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.


The bill does not define what it means to “coerce, intimidate, or harass” any person which leaves it open to subjective interpretation. Many Virginia citizens are concerned about the proposed bill, including Tina Freitas, the wife of Republican Virginia House of Delegates, Nick Freitas, who asked on Facebook, “What is considered harassment?”
This is what happens when Democrats put a Jim Crow-loving Klansman in charge of the state. Back to the 1930s!

 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
This is pretty disgraceful., It is going to be enforced in a highly selective and politicized way.
Of course, it should probably be defeated and burned to cinders upon the first judicial challenge it receives.
Anyone else think they'd support a bill that bans "indecent" criticism of public officials?
Imagine if Trump tried to enforce any such law (would earn that Nazi title)

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/01/23/va-legislators-introduce-anti-free-speech-bill-to-criminalize-online-criticism-of-government-officials/

After Virginia’s recent anti-second amendment legislation was successfully passed, the state legislature is now going after the first amendment. Virginia House Bill No. 1627 was introduced on January 16 which could effectively make it illegal to criticize government officials anywhere in the state. The Bill reads in part under section 18.2-152.7:1, “Harassment by computer; penalty,”

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.


The bill does not define what it means to “coerce, intimidate, or harass” any person which leaves it open to subjective interpretation. Many Virginia citizens are concerned about the proposed bill, including Tina Freitas, the wife of Republican Virginia House of Delegates, Nick Freitas, who asked on Facebook, “What is considered harassment?”
Interesting, isn't it, how focused Democrats are on taking stuff away as centerpiece of their agenda? They seem to be hellbent on citizens having fewer rights rather than more - particularly when it comes to enumerated rights (those most specifically protected).
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Interesting, isn't it, how focused Democrats are on taking stuff away as centerpiece of their agenda? They seem to be hellbent on citizens having fewer rights rather than more - particularly when it comes to enumerated rights (those most specifically protected).
Chris Plante puts it like this: whatever Democrats hate they want to ban and whatever the love they want to make mandatory.

Sums it up nice.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
Chris Plante puts it like this: whatever Democrats hate they want to ban and whatever the love they want to make mandatory.

Sums it up nice.
Makes one wonder what manner of parenting raises up such control freaks.
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
Chris Plante puts it like this: whatever Democrats hate they want to ban and whatever the love they want to make mandatory.

Sums it up nice.
Like cons with abortion, guns and banning minorities from other countries?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
0. And you with rescued abortion victims?
I have none...…...don't have a Planned Parenthood close that you libs abort black babies at...…...how does one rescue an aborted baby after sucked out a vagina? Black boy......

LMFAO....another Dislike from the "simple rule" punk sob...……….
 
Last edited:

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
I have none...…...don't have a Planned Parenthood close that you libs abort black babies at...…...how does one rescue an aborted baby after sucked out a vagina? Black boy......
If you cared about abortion as much as you pretend to, you would find a way. :)
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
If you cared about abortion as much as you pretend to, you would find a way. :)
I don't have the power of Planned Parenthood created by Sanger to ensure black babies were/Are aborted and libs make sure happens...…...why haven't you found a way to stop black babies aborted by PP?

How many times have you jacked off with your Avatar...……..Pervert
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
I don't have the power of Planned Parenthood created by Sanger to ensure black babies were/Are aborted and libs make sure happens...…...why haven't you found a way to stop black babies aborted by PP?

How many times have you jacked off with your Avatar...……..Pervert
Because it’s a woman’s right to choose. Duh.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Like cons with abortion, guns and banning minorities from other countries?
Rightful scientific limitations to abortion are supported by a majority of Americans whichever poll you choose from.
Not even the NRA is for absolute freedom for carrying weapons. Red herring there.
“Banning minorities from other countries” is another absurdity. All Trump did was enforce the Obama era policy of adding security precautions and limitations from people coming in from countries associated with terrorism.
You literally went 0 for 3 with that garbage response.
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
Rightful scientific limitations to abortion are supported by a majority of Americans whichever poll you choose from.
Not even the NRA is for absolute freedom for carrying weapons. Red herring there.
“Banning minorities from other countries” is another absurdity. All Trump did was enforce the Obama era policy of adding security precautions and limitations from people coming in from countries associated with terrorism.
You literally went 0 for 3 with that garbage response.
I exposed your snarky hypocrisy just fine. Limitations to abortions, of course, but your side wants them banned all together. Your little excuses for each are empty and pathetic.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Rightful scientific limitations to abortion are supported by a majority of Americans whichever poll you choose from.
Not even the NRA is for absolute freedom for carrying weapons. Red herring there.
“Banning minorities from other countries” is another absurdity. All Trump did was enforce the Obama era policy of adding security precautions and limitations from people coming in from countries associated with terrorism.
You literally went 0 for 3 with that garbage response.

That wins this debate.

Thread Killer :)
 

Dino

Russian Asset
I exposed your snarky hypocrisy just fine. Limitations to abortions, of course, but your side wants them banned all together. Your little excuses for each are empty and pathetic.
That’s total BS. “Your side wants them banned altogether” is an absolute lie, totally inconsistent with the reality regarding state and federal laws that have passed.
Face it, the right is less about absolutes than the left. There’s few calls for outright bans and almost zero calls for “mandatory” anything compared to the liberals.
You have few examples to choose from to refute that, proven by the fact you picked three poor analogies, none of which hold up.
Tough!!
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
That’s total BS. “Your side wants them banned altogether” is an absolute lie, totally inconsistent with the reality regarding state and federal laws that have passed.
Face it, the right is less about absolutes than the left. There’s few calls for outright bans and almost zero calls for “mandatory” anything compared to the liberals.
You have few examples to choose from to refute that, proven by the fact you picked three poor analogies, none of which hold up.
Tough!!

Its called "Butthurt Leftist Over Reaction Syndrome."

Example:

Just say "well I am not 100% sure on abortion law and maybe it should be a states right's issue. I'll need to research it more"

Leftist reaction: "YOU HATE WOMEN GET OUT OF MY VAGINA !!

And so on and so forth
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
Its called "Butthurt Leftist Over Reaction Syndrome."

Example:

Just say "well I am not 100% sure on abortion law and maybe it should be a states right's issue. I'll need to research it more"

Leftist reaction: "YOU HATE WOMEN GET OUT OF MY VAGINA !!

And so on and so forth
You have to research abortion more? Lol, it is a brand new issue.... ;)

Could you say the same about the right and guns?

Decent Person: I am in favor of our right to arms, but improving background checks, working with mental illness issues and closing loopholes could help to save innocent lives.

Gun Nut: YOU ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!! COME TAKE MY GUNS!!!

Let me guess...different?
 

SouthernBoyI

SouthernBoy
Chris Plante puts it like this: whatever Democrats hate they want to ban and whatever the love they want to make mandatory.

Sums it up nice.
I spend a lot of time driving in rural SC doing disaster recovery work....
To pass the time I listen to Hugh Hewitt and then Chris Plante...
Plante has me howling from start to finish....” Ima oil and gasss mannnn”

SB
 
Top