* * It's okay to lose an election

Without the acquiescence of the defeated, our democracy will collapse.

What do I mean by that? Since our nation began, too few voters have decided who will govern us, knowing that while voting for winners is better, voting for losers is tolerated. When our favorite candidate loses the election or when our favorite party ends up in the minority, we suck it up, continue to live by the rules and laws of the land, and if we’re motivated, work to turn things around in the next election. Ideas are formulated and articulated, and then the voters have their say. Defeats can seem devastating at the time, but they seldom are. Life goes on.

Case in point: I ran for the Virginia House of Delegates six years ago in the 7^th District, encompassing much of south Montgomery County, all of Floyd County, and much of Pulaski County. My joke goes that I ran a successful campaign, but not as successful as my opponent. I ran as a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, and although I did as well as other Democrats before and after me, it wasn’t enough to win.

But you know what? That’s fine.

As a career businessman, I truly felt that I had a better grasp of the economic issues of the district. But my opponent had a better grasp of its social issues. Many of the voters with whom I spoke were focused on guns, gays, and abortions rather than the economy. They got the delegate they wanted; I would not have represented them well. I wasn’t happy about it, but it’s not the end of the world.

Things seem to have changed, at least in the mind of many of the nation’s gun owners.

Perhaps you’ve heard there is a movement to declare many of our counties “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” Presumably these are places that either on a personal or civic level, or both, any laws thought to threaten the rights of gun owners would be ignored. This is madness.

Part of the impetus for this effort was sparked by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposed gun-regulation bills, put forth during the summer after still another horrific mass shooting in the state, this one in Virginia Beach. That plan was dead on arrival at a Republican controlled General Assembly. Now after the November 3 election, Democrats made historic gains, and when the new Assembly is inaugurated, they will be in control of both the House of Delegates and the Senate. They’ll have free reign to pass laws as they see fit. Many opinion polls show that many gun restrictions have widespread support that those legislators feel.

Gun owners are apoplectic. Let’s be clear: any “sanctuary” designation is not legally binding. But it could impact the work of law enforcement officials who are tasked with using public funds to restrict, as some see it, any Second Amendment rights.

But here’s how our system works. The voters elect their delegates, senators, governor, lt. governor, and attorney general. The delegates and senators write the laws. The governor signs them in. And then we, the people, obey them, or risk consequences. If those laws are deemed unconstitutional, they can, should, and will be challenged. If successfully challenged, they will be overturned or modified. But citizens don’t have the legal right to decide which laws they deem constitutional and thus worthy of compliance. If that were the case, we’d have anarchy.

Might I add here parenthetically that elections matter?

All the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation. That’s what the courts are for. 

The Second Amendment has been challenged repeatedly since it was written, with I think its deliberately questionable phrasing. What is meant by a "militia"? Is one citizen a militia? What does it mean to be "well regulated"? What is "arms"? Is a rocket-propelled grenade "arms"?

The Supreme Court's "Heller" decision gave certain rights to individuals to own weapons. To many gun rights people, it is a godsend. To its critics, it is among the SC's worst decisions.

While our Constitution is giving rights to gun owners, as citizens we should accept responsibilities. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to intimidate fellow citizens. Imagine a room filled with people discussing a contentious issue, and half or more are armed. Would you feel intimidated if you were in the minority? I would. Is the solution to carry a bigger weapon?

And it is intimidating to rally sentiment against laws that were passed by freely elected legislatures. It’s intimidating to proclaim that gun regulations will be ignored by our citizens and lawbreaking will be tolerated by our police.

That’s madness. It’s how our country dies.