Virginia liberty under threat
Thus always to tyrants
I am a libertarian, which means I do not have a stake in the ongoing partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats. I have found myself opposing policies from both Donald Trump and Abigail Spanberger because my primary concern is not party loyalty, but the preservation of individual liberty.
Virginia’s current leadership campaigned on moderation, yet many voters now perceive a governing approach that aligns more closely with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, declining approval ratings and growing public dissatisfaction suggest a disconnect that deserves attention.
Several policies advanced in recent years have been criticized as constitutionally questionable or likely to face legal challenges. When elected officials pursue legislation that may ultimately be struck down in court, the consequences can include temporary restrictions on rights, increased polarization, and unnecessary costs for taxpayers. Regardless of party affiliation, this pattern should concern anyone who values stable, effective governance.
One particularly contentious issue is redistricting. Critics argue that certain proposed maps risk diluting the influence of rural voters, raising concerns about fair representation. While it is natural for political parties to seek electoral advantage, any process that appears to undermine equal representation weakens public trust in democratic institutions. Fairness in representation should not be a partisan issue.
I would ask Democrats in Virginia to consider a simple question: if Governor Glenn Youngkin were advancing a similarly partisan district map, would you support it? If the answer is no, then consistency demands equal scrutiny in this case.
Concerns surrounding the Second Amendment also remain central to discussions about liberty. While modern debates often focus on hunting or sport, historical context suggests that the amendment was also understood as a safeguard for a free society. The framers wrote extensively about the importance of an armed populace in preserving liberty.
It is often argued that the founders did not intend for citizens to possess weapons of military utility. However, historical evidence shows that private citizens at the time owned a wide range of arms, including muskets, rifles, pistols, edged weapons, and even privately owned artillery and warships under letters of marque. While the scope and application of the Second Amendment remain subjects of ongoing legal interpretation, its historical context is broader than is sometimes acknowledged.
The following statements from founding-era figures help illustrate how the right to bear arms was understood at the time:
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…” — James Madison (The Federalist Papers, No. 46)
“I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — George Mason (Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788)
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson (Draft of the Virginia Constitution, 1776)
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee (Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1787–1788)
The Bill of Rights was not written to protect popular speech, popular beliefs, or widely accepted rights. It was written precisely to protect the rights others may disagree with. If we defend liberty only when it is convenient or politically advantageous, then we do not truly believe in it at all.
I urge my fellow Virginians—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—to stand for the consistent application of constitutional principles. The rights we safeguard today for others are the same rights that will protect us tomorrow.
