Are These Reasonable Regulations of Guns? or Harassment of Gun Owners?

[bigrebnc1775]

These are the new anti-gun laws that the Virginia Dimocrats are set to pass ASAP.

Here's the List of Bills Anti-Gunners Plan to Enact in Virginia - GunsAmerica Digest

The list from local news affiliate WSET:

• Legislation requiring background checks on all firearms sales and transactions. The bill mandates that any person selling, renting, trading, or transferring a firearm must first obtain the results of a background check before completing the transaction.
• Legislation banning dangerous weapons. This will include bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, bump stocks and silencers.
• Legislation to reinstate Virginia’s successful law allowing only one handgun purchase within a 30-day period.
• Legislation requiring that lost and stolen firearms be reported to law enforcement within 24 hours.
• Legislation creating an Extreme Risk Protective Order, allowing law enforcement and the courts to temporarily separate a person from firearms if the person exhibits dangerous behavior that presents an immediate threat to self or others.
• Legislation prohibiting all individuals subject to final protective orders from possessing firearms. The bill expands Virginia law which
• prohibits individuals subject to final protective orders of family abuse from possessing firearms.
• Legislation enhancing the punishment for allowing access to loaded, unsecured firearm by a child from a Class 3 Misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony. The bill also raises the age of the child from 14 to 18.
• Legislation enabling localities to enact any firearms ordinances that are stricter than state law. This includes regulating firearm's in municipal buildings, libraries and at permitted events.

The reason the proposed Virginia Bills are not reasonable is because the Second Amendment was put in place so that your average citizens could form regulated militias that would be an effective deterrence to a tyrannical government whether foreign...or..."domestic." Thus, such weapons would be small arms that would be an actual deterrence. Semi-automatic firearms in the hands of millions of citizens would be such a deterrence.

Well regulated militias were to defend our nation not attack our government

George Washington says you're full of shit.

View attachment 296162

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was said that the house was abusing its authority.

Yes, the Communists in the house have abused power by impeaching a president for the express purpose of influencing and corrupting an election. Now the scum are obstructing congress by refusing to obey the Constitution and send it to the senate. democrats are traitors, enemies of America.

Since the Senate ruling Party has already stated (Moscow Mitch) that they will NOT give a fair trial, sending it to the Senate would be a sham. Better to just let it hang and let the Voters decide. Or are you afraid of the Voters. One would think that the Senate Republicans would have kept their mouths shut, had the sham trial, exonerated Rump and let it die. But no, they have to play to the 36% till death. There are costs involved that if they had gone through the motions that they would not necessarily had to pay. Pretty much, the GOP in the Congress has now died and moved to the Party of the Rump.

Since Congress won't do it's job, we now rely on the Voter to do theirs. And I have a feeling not a lot of Washington Power Brokers are going to like it on either side fo the isle.

And why would the Senate do anything but treat the abuse of power by the Communists for what it is? Election tampering.

You had your Soviet Star Chamber, followed by your Stalinist Show Trial. You offered no evidence of wrong doing and brought out a parade of Marxist academics who spewed hate at the President. In the end, you found no high crimes or misdemeanors and charged the president with your own misdeeds of abusing power and obstructing congress.


{“McConnell should immediately put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication. McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or [with] conditions. Her effort to cripple the presidency [and] blackmail the Senate must be defeated.} Mark Levin, esq.

The Trial has yet to be done. The Trial is done by the Senate. The House only does the investigation and levels the charges. And Moscow Mitch has already said that the Senate was NOT going to have a fair trial. So the House holds the paperwork and gives it to the Voters. And that scares the hell out of you, doesn't it.

OK. so why was it so important to get it done, if Nasty Pelousy would be sitting on them?

Dumbass libtards!

Nasty will get her comeuppance and when the Articles are delivered and the Senate passes a motion to dismiss and it passes on a partly line vote. Thus endeth the fiasco.

As long as democrats control one branch of the government it will never be over.

 

[rightwinger]

Fascists are right wing and always have been. You really need to get educated. If you mean Marxists, call it Marxist. Fascism is the exact opposite of a Marxist. I know you won't read this but here is one of the best write ups I have ever seen by some very learned people.

What Is Fascism? | Live Science

Here is some bullet points. And you do full
You really need to get an education. Here is a very good write up of what Fascism is .

What Is Fascism? | Live Science

I know you won't read it since it won't agree with your cornball way of thinking (And Rush doesn't want you to) so I will just add a few bullet points of what it takes to be a Fascist. This is from Paxton's "The Five Stages of Fascism" dated 1998 and also from his book 2005 "The Anatomy of Fascism".

1. The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights.
2. Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies.
3. The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group.
4. A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."
5. Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging."
6. Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior.
7. "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle," Paxton wrote. The idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism.

Once in power, "fascist dictatorships suppressed individual liberties, imprisoned opponents, forbade strikes, authorized unlimited police power in the name of national unity and revival, and committed military aggression," Paxton wrote.

Looks s to me it sums up the Party of the Rump pretty well.

Ah, the big lie, how very clever.

Tell me Comrade; If we take a system where the state has absolute control of the means of production using central planning to determine what products are produced and what price they are sold for, where an authoritarian state rules under dictatorship of either a single man or a group of rulers, where the rights of individuals are subverted to the privilege of groups, where individualism in general is oppressed in favor of the collective, where any competing political or economic ideas are suppressed by the state, where the press is controlled by the state or the party and operates to further the agenda of the rulers, where speech against the state or collectivism in general is a criminal offense; how does this substantially differ from the Marxism you promote?

Wow, you actually described Marxism pretty well. And you also pointed out why it can't exist. One person or a small group of people just can't control something as large as the United States Economically or it's Government. So I doubt if we have too many real Marxists in USMB at this time. You are just playing "Hey, look over there".

But, by definition, you ARE a Fascist.

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Maybe you guys could practice by, say, taking guns away from criminals.

Hop to it.

Works for me

I support background checks...

Sensible gun control

 

[daveman]

It's funny, the leftists who insist we should just all roll over and accept their totalitarianism.

As if they wouldn't be put up against the wall by the government they worship as soon as their utility ceased.

 

[rightwinger]

Wow, you actually described Marxism pretty well. And you also pointed out why it can't exist. One person or a small group of people just can't control something as large as the United States Economically or it's Government. So I doubt if we have too many real Marxists in USMB at this time. You are just playing "Hey, look over there".

But, by definition, you ARE a Fascist.

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Well driving drunk is already illegal why don't we ban cars?

We register cars, make them safer to drive, insure them, license drivers....it makes us safer

We need to do the same with guns

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

The second amendment supports registering guns

 

[daveman]

Ah, the big lie, how very clever.

Tell me Comrade; If we take a system where the state has absolute control of the means of production using central planning to determine what products are produced and what price they are sold for, where an authoritarian state rules under dictatorship of either a single man or a group of rulers, where the rights of individuals are subverted to the privilege of groups, where individualism in general is oppressed in favor of the collective, where any competing political or economic ideas are suppressed by the state, where the press is controlled by the state or the party and operates to further the agenda of the rulers, where speech against the state or collectivism in general is a criminal offense; how does this substantially differ from the Marxism you promote?

Wow, you actually described Marxism pretty well. And you also pointed out why it can't exist. One person or a small group of people just can't control something as large as the United States Economically or it's Government. So I doubt if we have too many real Marxists in USMB at this time. You are just playing "Hey, look over there".

But, by definition, you ARE a Fascist.

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Maybe you guys could practice by, say, taking guns away from criminals.

Hop to it.

Works for me

I support background checks...

Sensible gun control

Background checks only work if the vendor submits the paperwork.

Do you think people who illegally sell guns do that?

Are you that ******* stupid?

Hint: Yes. Yes, you are.

 

[daveman]

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Well driving drunk is already illegal why don't we ban cars?

We register cars, make them safer to drive, insure them, license drivers....it makes us safer

We need to do the same with guns

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

The second amendment supports registering guns

No, it doesn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Well driving drunk is already illegal why don't we ban cars?

We register cars, make them safer to drive, insure them, license drivers....it makes us safer

We need to do the same with guns

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

The second amendment supports registering guns

Actually it supports private ownership not government ownership.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The second amendment supports registering guns

******* liar.

 

[daveman]

Raise your hand if you think registering guns is a good idea.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Well driving drunk is already illegal why don't we ban cars?

We register cars, make them safer to drive, insure them, license drivers....it makes us safer

We need to do the same with guns

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

The second amendment supports registering guns

No, it doesn't.

I gave him a one-two punch that has him dazed and on the ropes.

 

[daveman]

Well driving drunk is already illegal why don't we ban cars?

We register cars, make them safer to drive, insure them, license drivers....it makes us safer

We need to do the same with guns

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

The second amendment supports registering guns

No, it doesn't.

I gave him a one-two punch that has him dazed and on the ropes.

Well, to be honest, making him dazed is a short trip, man.

 

[JimBowie1958]

but not a stretch ,consider an armed populace that's deputized via fema (which is exactly what NIMS is about) , then given their marching orders by our military under a national emergency by someone abusive potus in power

While possible, I would hope that people are wise enough to not obey immoral or UnConstitutional orders.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

Driving licenses only apply to people driving on public roads. I knew a friend who had an old truck that they only drove on their farm. It couldnt pass inspection, so rather than fix thier old vehicle so it could be driven on public streets they kept it to use only on the farm. I have heard that that is a common thing farmers do.

 

[sparky]

but not a stretch ,consider an armed populace that's deputized via fema (which is exactly what NIMS is about) , then given their marching orders by our military under a national emergency by someone abusive potus in power

While possible, I would hope that people are wise enough to not obey immoral or UnConstitutional orders.

again i agree Jim

but as a minion of the PA , i would have had little choice ,save for resignation

elevate that to potential mass insubordination if you will

~S~

 

[sparky]

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

Driving licenses only apply to people driving on public roads. I knew a friend who had an old truck that they only drove on their farm. It couldnt pass inspection, so rather than fix thier old vehicle so it could be driven on public streets they kept it to use only on the farm. I have heard that that is a common thing farmers do.

oh yeah....in fact the 70's truck is usually parked next to the 60's & 50's truck.....all in various stages of 'returning to the earth' ~S~

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no alternative but to register your vehicles because (repeat after me)
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

Driving licenses only apply to people driving on public roads. I knew a friend who had an old truck that they only drove on their farm. It couldnt pass inspection, so rather than fix thier old vehicle so it could be driven on public streets they kept it to use only on the farm. I have heard that that is a common thing farmers do.

That is true

 

[rightwinger]

Wow, you actually described Marxism pretty well. And you also pointed out why it can't exist. One person or a small group of people just can't control something as large as the United States Economically or it's Government. So I doubt if we have too many real Marxists in USMB at this time. You are just playing "Hey, look over there".

But, by definition, you ARE a Fascist.

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Maybe you guys could practice by, say, taking guns away from criminals.

Hop to it.

Works for me

I support background checks...

Sensible gun control

Background checks only work if the vendor submits the paperwork.

Do you think people who illegally sell guns do that?

Are you that ******* stupid?

Hint: Yes. Yes, you are.

That is why we need traceability of guns from cradle to grave

That way, when Dave man sells his gun to a criminal, we know where it came from

 

[rightwinger]

The second amendment supports registering guns

******* liar.

How else can we well regulate our militias?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remember, kids, people who want the maximum amount of personal liberty for all citizens are fascists.

According to some retarded Marxist on the internet.

Killing 30,000 people a year is not personal liberty

Maybe you guys could practice by, say, taking guns away from criminals.

Hop to it.

Works for me

I support background checks...

Sensible gun control

Background checks only work if the vendor submits the paperwork.

Do you think people who illegally sell guns do that?

Are you that ******* stupid?

Hint: Yes. Yes, you are.

That is why we need traceability of guns from cradle to grave

That way, when Dave man sells his gun to a criminal, we know where it came from

when a car is sold to a habitual drunk and they drive the car drunk and kill someone you'll never call for a ban on cars or want to trace it back to the original owner why?