Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[DBA]

Normal people don't have a history of crime or violence. Normal people don't belong to terrorist or hate groups. Normal people don't have a history of mental issues.

What sort of mental issues?

Ones that might make them a danger to others. If you want more detail consult a doctor.

Most discussions with liberals ends in them yelling and screaming when backed into a corner. Maybe they should be on no-gun list. I don't trust their stability.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Normal people don't have a history of crime or violence. Normal people don't belong to terrorist or hate groups. Normal people don't have a history of mental issues.

What sort of mental issues?

Ones that might make them a danger to others. If you want more detail consult a doctor.

As noted below, everyone has the potential to be a danger to others.

That is a very low bar

 

[Flash]

There will be thousands of people from out of state supporting their brothers and sisters from Virginia attending the freedom rally on Friday.

There are a couple of dozen from my area, many more from the rest of Florida.

It is going to be a huge armed rally. We need to send a message to this Democrat filth that they can't take away our Constitutional rights without dire consequences.

God bless the people in Virginia for standing up to this destruction of Liberty by the Democrats.

Why don't you let the people of Virginia decide what is best for Virginia and let the people of Florida decide what is best for Florida?

If you are a state in this Republic you have to abide by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on if some stupid lying confused hateful asshole Democrats can simply vote away your individual rights away.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of Democracy and that is a good thing. You never want a bunch of confused dumbasses voting away your Liberty, do you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What is "normal"? How do you determine it? How do you go about denying someone a Constitutionally protected right without them committing an action worthy of such a thing?

Normal people don't have a history of crime or violence. Normal people don't belong to terrorist or hate groups. Normal people don't have a history of mental issues.

I do not think there is any person alive who does not have some mental issues. If there is such a person, surely he must be quite significantly abnormal.

You, for example, very obviously have an irrational fear of weapons, which is a sign of retarded sexual development. On that basis, what Constitutional rights should you be denied because of your obvious mental issues?

Christian churches and organizations that still hold to basic standards of decency and morality are now being called “hate groups” by those on the left wrong. Many normal people belong to such churches and organizations.

Locking people up after they have committed a crime is not preferable to preventing that crime in the first place.

Innocent until proven guilty. We don't get to punish someone for a crime that we think he •might• commit, and we don't get to deprive anyone of any of his basic Constitutional rights without at least some valid due process of law.

 

[alang1216]

As noted below, everyone has the potential to be a danger to others.

That is a very low bar

Maybe so but I bet the potential is greater for some, schizophrenics for instance, than for others.

 

[Flash]

You have no argument for normal people owning and carrying guns.....since normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase gun crime.....

That is the point...

Correct, I don't have an argument against normal people owning guns. My point is that I would just like to know that there is some mechanism to ensure that only "normal" people own guns. Locking people up after they have committed a crime is not preferable to preventing that crime in the first place.

What is "normal"? How do you determine it? How do you go about denying someone a Constitutionally protected right without them committing an action worthy of such a thing?

Normal people don't have a history of crime or violence. Normal people don't belong to terrorist or hate groups. Normal people don't have a history of mental issues.

What sort of mental issues?

Gender dysphoria (GID) is mental disorder. Should they be on the no-gun list? The list of what are considered mental disorders is very fluid and, like it or not, politics play a role.

In times past Republicans decided that being Black was too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms.

Nowadays the Democrats have decided that Being White and Conservative is too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms.

I don't want other people deciding if I am worthy of being allowed to enjoy individual Constitutional rights.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As noted below, everyone has the potential to be a danger to others.

That is a very low bar

Maybe so but I bet the potential is greater for some, schizophrenics for instance, than for others.

Then again we are stuck choosing where to draw the line for taking away a Constitutionally protected right based upon potential.

That is a damn slippery slope.

 

[alang1216]

If you are a state in this Republic you have to abide by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on if some stupid lying confused hateful asshole Democrats can simply vote away your individual rights away.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of Democracy and that is a good thing. You never want a bunch of confused dumbasses voting away your Liberty, do you?

While I don't disagree, I also don't think any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are absolute. All are subject to restrictions as to how they are exercised.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In times past Republicans decided that being Black was too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms.

Nowadays the Democrats have decided that Being White and Conservative is too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms.

I don't want other people deciding if I am worthy of being allowed to enjoy individual Constitutional rights.

Just to pick a nit, it was specifically the Ku Klux Klan that pushed for, and got, the first gun control laws, and these laws were specifically targeted at black people. And the Ku Klux Klan was a branch of the Democratic party, not the Republicans. It's always been Democrats targeting the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically trying to deny this right to those that they see as their political enemies.

 

[Flash]

If you are a state in this Republic you have to abide by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on if some stupid lying confused hateful asshole Democrats can simply vote away your individual rights away.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of Democracy and that is a good thing. You never want a bunch of confused dumbasses voting away your Liberty, do you?

While I don't disagree, I also don't think any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are absolute. All are subject to restrictions as to how they are exercised.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on very many gun right laws. There are reasons for that.

Many times a violation of a gun right is against somebody that has committed another crime with the gun. The cases never work up through the courts because the other crimes take precedent and the gun right issue is never litigated.

You need standing to get a review of a case on gun rights and there are very few instances of the issue only being the Constitutional right.

Then you have the fact that gun right cases are hidden from the court by Conservatives when there are Liberals on the bench and visa versa. We have seen that recently when New York reversed a gun law rather than have it reviewed by a Conservative majority Supreme Court.

The problem is that the Courts have not applied strict scrutiny to the right to keep and bear arms like they do other individual rights and that is wrong. Hopefully this will be fixed by the Supreme Court with the New York case that they decided to take up even though NY reversed the law.

Your idea of "absolute" and my idea of absolute is probably miles apart. I simply believe that the government has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

The crime should NEVER be the possession of the firearm but the crime that is done with it.

 

[Blues Man]

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

Of course there are

You can't sue Chevy or the jack daniels Co because some guy drank a lot of whiskey and mowed down your kid with his car

You can't sue the buck knife Co if someone stabs you with one of their knives

You can't sue Louisville slugger Co if someone bashes your head in with a bat

Incorrect. Only the gun industry is protected from lawsuits even if they are guilty of negligence.

It's not negligent on the part of the manufacturer if a person uses their products to commit crimes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

There will be thousands of people from out of state supporting their brothers and sisters from Virginia attending the freedom rally on Friday.

There are a couple of dozen from my area, many more from the rest of Florida.

It is going to be a huge armed rally. We need to send a message to this Democrat filth that they can't take away our Constitutional rights without dire consequences.

God bless the people in Virginia for standing up to this destruction of Liberty by the Democrats.

Why don't you let the people of Virginia decide what is best for Virginia and let the people of Florida decide what is best for Florida?

My constitutional rights are not subject to state laws.

All states in the union must abide by the constitution

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

If you are a state in this Republic you have to abide by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on if some stupid lying confused hateful asshole Democrats can simply vote away your individual rights away.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of Democracy and that is a good thing. You never want a bunch of confused dumbasses voting away your Liberty, do you?

While I don't disagree, I also don't think any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are absolute. All are subject to restrictions as to how they are exercised.

How many times do you have to be told that the only thing the second amendment protects is the right to own and carry firearms

No one has the right to use a firearm except for very specific very well defined instances

The limits on use you seek are already part of the law.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

Of course there are

You can't sue Chevy or the jack daniels Co because some guy drank a lot of whiskey and mowed down your kid with his car

You can't sue the buck knife Co if someone stabs you with one of their knives

You can't sue Louisville slugger Co if someone bashes your head in with a bat

Incorrect. Only the gun industry is protected from lawsuits even if they are guilty of negligence.

It's not negligent on the part of the manufacturer if a person uses their products to commit crimes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So there was no reason to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

 

[Blues Man]

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

Of course there are

You can't sue Chevy or the jack daniels Co because some guy drank a lot of whiskey and mowed down your kid with his car

You can't sue the buck knife Co if someone stabs you with one of their knives

You can't sue Louisville slugger Co if someone bashes your head in with a bat

Incorrect. Only the gun industry is protected from lawsuits even if they are guilty of negligence.

It's not negligent on the part of the manufacturer if a person uses their products to commit crimes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So there was no reason to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

I don't see why it was needed but then again most laws congress passes are not needed

A gun manufacturer is no more responsible for how a person uses their products than any other manufacturer



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

I simply believe that the government has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

The crime should NEVER be the possession of the firearm but the crime that is done with it.

While I think you don't have the right to possess any type of weapon and carry it as you see fit. I do believe, in deference to the Constitution, any restrictions must be justifiable in terms of public safety and not arbitrary.

 

[Flash]

I simply believe that the government has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

The crime should NEVER be the possession of the firearm but the crime that is done with it.

While I think you don't have the right to possess any type of weapon and carry it as you see fit. I do believe, in deference to the Constitution, any restrictions must be justifiable in terms of public safety and not arbitrary.

The problem is that stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when advocating restrictions and they are never reasonable. For instance, just look at Bloomberg's anti right to keep and bear arms agenda. As crazy as it comes. I'll post it if you are confused. Look what they are proposing in Virginia. Look what they have in Commie California and New York.

The other realistic thing is that gun control laws never restrict the shitheads that mostly commit the crimes with the guns.

I have 50 firearms now. They are safer to the public than the one swimming pool I have in my back yard.

 

[alang1216]

So there was no reason to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

I don't see why it was needed but then again most laws congress passes are not needed

A gun manufacturer is no more responsible for how a person uses their products than any other manufacturer

The manufacturer and distributor should be responsible for how they market and sell the product.

 

[alang1216]

I simply believe that the government has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

The crime should NEVER be the possession of the firearm but the crime that is done with it.

While I think you don't have the right to possess any type of weapon and carry it as you see fit. I do believe, in deference to the Constitution, any restrictions must be justifiable in terms of public safety and not arbitrary.

The problem is that stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when advocating restrictions and they are never reasonable. For instance, just look at Bloomberg's anti right to keep and bear arms agenda. As crazy as it comes. I'll post it if you are confused. Look what they are proposing in Virginia. Look what they have in Commie California and New York.

The other realistic thing is that gun control laws never restrict the shitheads that mostly commit the crimes with the guns.

I have 50 firearms now. They are safer to the public than the one swimming pool I have in my back yard.

You may think gun control laws are 'never reasonable' but you're in a minority. What they are proposing in Virginia will likely be very popular. Gun control was a major reason Virginia is now solidly Blue.

 

[Blues Man]

So there was no reason to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

I don't see why it was needed but then again most laws congress passes are not needed

A gun manufacturer is no more responsible for how a person uses their products than any other manufacturer

The manufacturer and distributor should be responsible for how they market and sell the product.

And who advocates murder in gun advertisements?

No one that's who

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk