And then enjoy your assault rife


I wish to respond to Lawrence Freeman’s question about how politicians have a right to deny your perceived rights. He was passionately defending the Second Amendment and the Virginia Article 1 Section 13 to define his right to bear arms, but he totally ignores the most vital aspect of our governing structure.

We are a democracy and are governed by the majority. The Democrats were elected by a majority of Virginians on a platform of enacting safeguards for weapons. The majority spoke loud and clear that they are tired of Republicans/NRA ignoring the will of the people.

The NRA and the Republicans want you to forget that there once was a legal ban on assault weapons that they allowed to end. They want you to forget because otherwise you wouldn’t believe you have a constitutional right to have them. They want you to forget that machine guns are illegal for the same reason.

The point is, it is the will of the majority that should rule. A few hundred people going to a county/city meeting and getting county leaders to pass a meaningless resolution, does not represent the majority of citizens simply because it ignores the actual vote by the whole Commonwealth.

There is one other thing that piqued my interest in his piece. The naive thought that citizens could actually stand up against our military/government. First, if you plan to fight our military, you better start getting more than an assault weapon because that M1 Abrams tank, that drone with laser-guided rockets, no let’s think bigger, that nuclear bomb will probably win.

You see whoever wrote Article 1 Section 13 had the foresight to say “having standing armies, in peace time, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty.” Why, since everything in our constitution, is to be abided by, do we ignore that pearl?

It’s simple, the reason we have, according to President Trump, the most powerful military in the world, is because we don’t believe the good men and women who serve our country could be turned against our citizens. We believe they are why we are safe, and they are our well-regulated militia.

You want to protect yourself from home invaders, get a 12-gauge shotgun because most of you can’t hit the broadside of a barn with a handgun or rifle when you have someone shooting at you. If you are a hunter using an assault weapon, you’re certainly not a sportsman. If you don’t like what the government is doing, get out and vote.

Finally, I’ll leave you with this thought. Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. If the politicians had half a brain, they would simply eliminate the bullets, and you could have all of the assault rifles you want.

Lonnie Weyant is a resident of Lake Frederick.

Lonnie Weyant is a resident

of Lake Frederick.

(10) comments


You would think that someone living in a retirement community would be wise enough to know that we are a Republican and not a Democracy. I would challenge LONNIE D. WEYANT to find out what the difference is and why our founding fathers were so dead set against a Democracy. The Democrat political machine has for ages tried to change the meaning of words they don't like, and dumb down the population with such thoughts. Sure lets ban guns and forks, but heaven help is to not have to change human nature. After all, as Pelosi has said bad people "are humans too". Why should we deny them the right to live off of our hard work, to harm the ones we love, and to ruin our lives with their evil. Shouldn't we love everyone? Or should some realism find us tying a millstone around these criminal's necks so that they properly drown? (see I have read the scriptures too.)


Bullets kill people? So do cars, so let's ban them too -- what a bunch a moronic nonsense!


When I was a weapons guy in the military I never once saw a bullet jump off the table and chase anyone. Guess what forks make people fat and cause diabetes, better ban forks.


Machine guns are already illegal. May one day you find yourself in a position where an AR could save your life. Dont worry criminals are sickos will still acquire firearms of all kinds. I agree a shotgun is great for home self defense. Any firearm you own legally I believe one should be trained on that particular firearm on a regular basis. Also I believe frederick county voted against. Im tired of living by the rules of the city slickers of northern Virginia

Spock Here

Uh, those "city slickers" of NOVA pay the bulk of the taxes for this fine commonwealth. They've had to suck up to "minority rule" for the past too many years, and having their taxes wasted on "roads to nowhere" by republican legislators.


Roads to nowhere? Like where you live? Or do you even live here or in one of those blue bastions of nannyhood?

Spock Here

You must remember Bob McDonnell's pet project? Dec 8, 2013 The Virginian-Pilot: "The new U.S. 460 is hardly efficient. It makes little sense, given that the planned 55-mile, limited access highway would run parallel to an existing, lightly traveled - and free - U.S. 460 between Suffolk and Petersburg.

The new road would impose tolls of $3.69 for cars, and $11.62 for trucks, traveling the entire stretch.

Meanwhile, state officials designated $1.1 billion in public funds for the $1.4 billion project, a preposterous proportion of taxpayer dollars for a privately built road that is neither necessary nor cost-effective.

But those details are overshadowed by state officials' decision to push forward on construction without having in hand the federal permits necessary for the route's completion.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing the state's plans, which would destroy about 480 acres of wetlands; that more than triples an earlier estimate.

The Army corps is responsible for evaluating whether the state is planning to build the most practical and least environmentally damaging route. A decision on whether to permit the project isn't expected before spring, but state officials have signaled an interest in building sections that don't require Army corps approval.

That approach represents a remarkable disregard for the notion of being good, responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. And it's indicative of a mindset in which fantasy has obscured logic." Certainly wasn't a project of the "blue bastions of nannyhood"


Still didn't answer my questions.


No nation in the world has ever felt the need to codify that its military (regular or militia) should have the right to arms. The 2nd Amendment, then, is obviously about something else than that. As for "majority rules", the majority is still not allowed to deny others their rights. Banning bullets is inane. While I respect that an elementary school child has written a letter to the editor, I think that a bit of schooling is in order before fully formed thoughts can be expected.


The majority does rule, or at least it used to. Now, if an election violates the aspirations of some voters, they kick, scream and whine to have it overturned. In the case of guns, the focus is all wrong. Just like modern medicine that only throws pills towards symptoms, rather than getting to the true source of the illness (often lifestyle choices), ignoring who and what is truly causing this uptick in violence around us (a sick society), is nothing more than a useless feel-good move that won’t solve anything. What really scares me are people who are either ignorant of history, or choose to ignore it.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
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.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.