What else?
If the General Assembly of Virginia gives their supporters, funders, and governor the victory that they want: disarming their fellow Virginians, what happens? After all, they can pass all the laws that they can. Enforcing them against this growing and unifying resistance is not going to be easy.
Indeed, it may be impossible.
Especially if we consider other things.
Self defense and the right to keep and bear arms are not the only highly-charged issue that the Old Dominion faces in 2020. All of which will make the divisions in the state even worse.
Early in 2019, the sitting governor made it clear that abortions will ramp up in Virginia. As soon as the General Assembly can pass the new laws, we can expect third-trimester abortions to become legal, and the governor has already made it blindingly clear that partial-birth abortions and infanticide will be de facto, if not de jure, part of “health care” in Virginia.
(Funny how the Commonwealth’s Attorney General intends to enforce the gun confiscation laws but not the laws against child abuse, neglect, and murder for children “accidentally born” during a very late-term abortion.)
It is primarily the urban elites who want to destroy the cultural heritage and history of the Old Dominion. The destruction of Confederate monuments and the attacks and vandalism of memorials and meetinghouses, and the attacks on free speech all are symptoms of the push to destroy Virginian culture and “rebuild” its society into … something else.
I suspect that the opposition to abortion (and a few other things) is probably much stronger in those green areas on the map, much as self-defense and keeping your arms is. No, people who don’t believe that abortion is acceptable don’t have to go have them. But they apparently have to pay for them (with money stolen from them as taxpayers and through insurance premiums). And if the Tranzis get their way, fill the prescriptions to do them. And in the case of medical personnel, actually perform them. And watch while even their own relatives are terminated in the womb.
Maybe the solution is the same one that Virginians lived through in 1861 to 1863. Then, the counties of West Virginia opposed to slavery seceded (with the illogical and hypocritical aid of DC). Is it possible to draw a line or lines – either to let the Tranzi, gun-hating hoplophobic masses and politicians go off on their own – perhaps as the State of Northern Virginia? (Sure to be competing with Massachusetts and California as the epitome of wokeness and “progressivism.”)
Or let most of the counties of Virginia secede from Richmond and join West Virginia? After all, abortion and denial of our freedom to defend ourselves is as much a sin as slavery.
If 3-4 million Virginians are either pushed out (Northern Virginia) or join with West Virginia, it might avoid the violence and destruction of a true civil war in the state which bore the brunt of fighting in the War Between the States.
Given the increasing hatred on both sides, the lethality of modern weapons (both civilian and military), and the risks of spreading the conflict, should we not hope for a peaceful solution through secession?
I know it is popular among pro-gunners to say that the SJW and leftists in general would have little or no choice but to surrender if it came to armed conflict. But time and again such people have proved to be more brutal and capable opponents than expected. (Consider the decadent pre-Hitler youth of the 1920s becoming the Wehrmacht of the 1930s and 1940s. And the armchair intellectuals that fought the Falangists in Spain in the 1930s.)
And we cannot forget that the Tranzis have shown only token objections to outsourcing the suppression of resistance. African and Russian mercenaries, or even such from places like Cuba, Venezuela, or some other place, in the guise of UN Peacekeepers or as “hard-working immigrants,” should not be ruled out.
Risky? Yes, but we know that the Tranzi rulers and elites have never been too loath to use such means. As the very fact that they are pushing these laws in Virginia shows.
The Price of Liberty 
Do you really suppose a line drawn on a map will somehow give the commies satisfaction or to render both sides tolerable one to the other?
Why do you and so many others immediately rush to the formation of new states as a solution, even if you think it will yield an equitable solution?
Why should any lands of the Union be ceded to those who find the Constitution, et al, (or, the statist, if you find that term more to one’s liking) to be unbearable?
Such ‘solution’ is merely a delaying tactic. At best, it forestalls the eventuality. Please name even one state (country) from any time in history which has featured two opposing forces enjoying a lasting peace while in proximity to one another.
I rarely say it, not as oft as I should; Be well.
LikeLike
Dear Rick:
You make many excellent points. I may place too much confidence in borders, but I do not think that such “lines on a map” will be either satisfactory to the controllers or get people to tolerate. I don’t view it as a permanent situation, either. Much as I dislike the man (and despise him), Lincoln correctly quoted Scripture: “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” I see secession of one part of a state from another as being a way to delay the inevitable and give lovers of liberty more time to prepare. It is, exactly as you point out, a delaying tactic. But there is great value in that.
At the same time, I’ve hardly rushed to secession as a solution – even a temporary one. I have advocated/predicted secession both for parts of states and from the federal union for a half-century. It IS a way to maximize liberty for at least some, while those who give up liberty for “safety” find out that their way leads to disaster and failure. Sometimes, the delay can be measured in decades, if not often. Examples include the armed standoff between Taiwan and the mainland, the two Koreas, and even the formerly two Germanies. I suppose we could even cite the last couple of decades in the former Yugoslavia, and perhaps even some Latin American countries. But you are right: nothing is permanent.
LikeLike
Mwa culpa – yes, quite correct that you haven’t rushed to secession. My excuse is I have seen such solution bandied about so very often and had, in fact just gotten off another blog where that one spoke of secession as desirable. Grrrr
As for the examples, none need to be reminded that those are armed adversaries entered into a ‘forced peace’ and whatever tolerance as exists or existed is/was tenuous at best and could not in any fashion be considered a true peace. A cessation of hostilities is not peace, true peace is the absence of enmity in the heart.
To be clear, I am not asking for permanency; I ask that the abiding of one another not be contrived or forced. I cannot fathom such condition with them who seek to tear down, even marginally, that which I cherish. It has been said that America is an idea. I agree. Therefore, to rent the idea is injurious to me and to that I strenuously object.
LikeLike
Again, Rick, we agree. Peace is more than not fighting. But as Paul wrote to the Roman christians, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.” These Tranzis and hoplophobes and hoploclasts do not want peace, and do want control of everyone, especially those who disagree with them. If I can at least lock them out of my house, I certainly shall, until they stop (through their own volition or out of desperation) trying to rule over me. Then, as I choose, I will practice what benevolence for them I can. Separation can help preserve peace – and secession is one way of doing that. But far from being what we would prefer. And not anything close to the American dream of liberty – a city on a hill, to which others wish to add themselves voluntarily and remain so without coercion.
LikeLike
Pingback: Upping the ante – are Virginia Hoploclasts going for broke? | The Price of Liberty