Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now problems have arisen as to whom this government is representing. The orange whore and pigpence and the rest of the republicans are not representing the rest of us. Should we all get this weaponry now and form militias to protect our communities from them?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Yes, you should!!!

Were you expecting a different response?

.

Those of us who are decent, ethical, patriotic, non-violent Americans do not want to go this route. I don't know how to proceed against these filthy thugs who have no regard for anything.

You're an American? I'd have never guessed.

What makes you an American?

 

[iceberg]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

 

[alang1216]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

You should compare your map to a map of population.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

You should compare your map to a map of population.

Irrelevant. The Democrats have no enforcement mechanism.

 

[alang1216]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

 

[Weatherman2020]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

 

[alang1216]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

You should compare your map to a map of population.

Irrelevant. The Democrats have no enforcement mechanism.

Democrats can vote and have made VA Blue.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

You should compare your map to a map of population.

Irrelevant. The Democrats have no enforcement mechanism.

Democrats can vote and have made VA Blue.

Wait until November.

 

[alang1216]

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

Who exactly is grabbing your guns?

 

[iceberg]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

that's why i asked - using an extreme place to start, not to end.

so we use federal laws as a guide and adjust to suit country needs. this would then mean a county could ban semi-automatic guns if they felt it necessary.

how would this then be enforced? at a local level? if i go to county b and buy a semi - am i an outlaw in my own county now? i legally bought the gun...

the supreme court would be stacked with civil / federal rights cases and i don't see that ending well.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

Who exactly is grabbing your guns?

The people calling for the National Guard to kick in the doors of Virginia citizens.

 

[iceberg]

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

doesn't seem he was talking about federal law. seems he was talking about local restrictions. so far he's not mentioned trump in all this.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

And were a Democrat in the seat, the military cannot be used to enforce domestic law, as they reminded several states over the illegal alien flood.

 

[alang1216]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

Sure looks like Virginia is friendly to gun ownership.

The hills and the trees, yes, the people, not so much.

 

[rightwinger]

Speech is not an unalienable right. It is in the Constitution to prevent our government from making laws limiting speech.
In my world I can prevent anyone I want from speaking to me.

Guns are not an unalienable right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is

If speech is not an unalienable right how can you say the right of the people to keep and bear arms is? I sense you're just wishing, not thinking.

Where did I say speech wasn't a right?

We have a right to free speech and to bear arms. Both are in the Constitution but neither are 'unalienable', only life, liberty, and the pursuit. ALL rights have limits.

Even life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence and has no legal authority

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

You should compare your map to a map of population.

Irrelevant. The Democrats have no enforcement mechanism.

Democrats can vote and have made VA Blue.

 

[rightwinger]

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is unclear to you?

The same part about well regulated militia
It takes a legal definition

 

[bigrebnc1775]

a lot of words salad to say you think nobody understands the Constitution other than lawmakers. who actually do not understand the Constitution

You don't understand what it takes to make a legal argument based on precedent, do you? Try writing a brief, with footnotes. From your comment, I take it that you think that lawmakers in republican-controlled states don't understand the Constitution. I probably would agree with you there. Lawyers, rather than lawmakers, study to understand the Constitution. If I want an answer to a question about the Constitution, I'll turn to an expert, somebody like Laurence Tribe.

Same goes for other issues. For example, if I need an answer to a medical question, I'll go to the organizations of medical professions. If I need an answer to a question about structural engineering, I'll turn to societies of professional engineers.

You seem to want a society that is operated by some beer-drinkers sitting in the back of Charlie's garage somewhere who have no background in anything.

did you not watch the video of the lady who co-sponsored a bill on mag capacity and has zero idea how they work?

you need a big cup of shut the **** up this morning.

She knows enough about the results, mass murder in an instant, and that these weapons have no peaceful use in U.S. society, or in any society for that matter. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.

If they have no use, why do our police and military have better, more powerful/deadly versions of them?

Do you not see the problem with a serious imbalance in power? Who is this government representing?

It does not surprise me that you think the way you do. Once a commie always a commie, I suppose.

.

There is no "serious imbalance of power" given that the police and the military have, up until this point, been authorized by We The People to have them to protect us, so long as we have faith in their individual integrity and patriotism.

Now problems have arisen as to whom this government is representing. The orange whore and pigpence and the rest of the republicans are not representing the rest of us. Should we all get this weaponry now and form militias to protect our communities from them?

Your reference to me as being a "commie" shows how ignorant you are as to what the term means and as to who I am and what my thoughts are regarding how the economy should be run. Given that, I can't think of you as an American of good character.

The supreme court has ruled that police are not legally obligated to protect anyone.

 

[iceberg]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

the right can be pretty apathetic at times and the left can be overbearing, at times.

we seem to be coming to a head where the overbearing went too far and woke up the right who's saying ENOUGH.

where we go from here isn't likely to be pretty.

 

[2aguy]

In the event that things really start ratcheting up; the President can order the National Guard to stand down, can he not?

He can federalize them....when the democrats refused to let Black children into public schools, President Eisenhower the Republican Party President, federalized the National Guard. Orval Faubus, the then democrat party governor of Arkansas.......and really good friend of bill and hilary clinton.......ordered the national guard to block entrance to the schools...that's when Eisenhower federalized them and sent them to protect the children...

Arkansas National Guard and the integration of Central High School - Wikipedia

On May 17, 1954, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional in the United States.[1] That ruling would focus the spotlight of national attention in the United States upon the Arkansas National Guard and the integration of Central High School. The Arkansas National Guard was drawn into the conflict when Governor Orval Faubus ordered them to "Preserve the Peace" by turning away the black students who were attempting to integrate into Little Rock's Central High School. United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower reacted to this use of the Guard to foil the court-ordered integration by federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard and using it to protect the nine black students integrating Central High School.