Virginia votes to ban guns in state capitol...why? Since it has never been problem before.

[Jitss617]

Snipers Mount up

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Search Results | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay. Which one?

Is it your intent to claim that there is any example among those at that link, which is not dishonest? Seriously?

 

[White 6]

Virginia democrats, showing that they are serious about taking guns away from people one stupid law at a time....just banned guns in the State Capitol....even though guns have been allowed there for decades without a problem....meanwhile.....people in Virginia who were banned from carrying guns were victims of mass public shootings....and didn't have their guns to stop the killer in 6 seconds....like happened in Texas...

In Virginia....

3 mass public shootings in Virginia gun free zones......

0 mass public shootings in Capitol where people could carry guns for self defense....

Virginia Lawmakers Have Voted to Ban Guns from the State Capitol Building

While Democrat House Speaker House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn can’t point any problems in their state Capitol, she claims that this ban is necessary “to keep everybody safe.” But it isn’t just that there hasn’t been a problem in Virginia where people have been able to carry for decades. There hasn’t been a problem in the other 22 states that allow legislators and/or civilians to carry guns on Capitol grounds.

Unfortunately, Virginians haven’t learned anything from attacks in their own state. The tragedy at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center last year fits an all too familiar pattern—yet another mass shooting in a place the victims were banned from carrying guns. The most lives are claimed in places where people can’t defend themselves on equal footing. It’s not a coincidence the attack occurred in a public building filled with public employees prohibited from carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.
-----

That attack could have ended with much less bloodshed. Kate Nixon, a compliance manager at the municipal center, was concerned about a fellow employee and spoke with her husband the night before the attack about taking her permitted, concealed carry handgun to work. However, the city bans individuals, including public employees, from possessing “any weapon” on city property unless authorized by a supervisor so she decided against it. Unlike his law-abiding colleagues, the killer didn’t abide by the ban. Kate Nixon was one of the 12 people killed in the attack.

Or take the 2017 case in Virginia when Republican lawmakers came under fire during a baseball practice, and they were trapped by a tall fence with one exit. The Republican legislators only survived the shooting at their baseball practice because of Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) security detail, to which he was entitled as a member of the House leadership. There would have been a horrible massacre if not for the Capitol Police.

At least five of the congressmen had concealed handgun permits from their home states. At least one aide also revealed that he had a permit. But as Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who was present at the attack, explained to me: “My residence is in the District of Columbia, which means that it would have been illegal for me to take my weapon with me to the ballpark—about a 9-mile bike ride—and it would have also been illegal for me to come from Virginia back into D.C. with my weapon.”
------

Of course, don’t forget the other Virginia mass public shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 that left 32 murdered.

The problem with gun-free zones, which ban law-abiding civilians from carrying, is that they don’t exactly scare off criminals. In fact, they have just the opposite effect. Disarming everyone, including legislators or staffers, on their way to and from the buildings leaves them easy targets to criminals and terrorists. The murderers have an incentive to disobey the law precisely because the law-abiding obey it.
-----

The 22 other states with more liberal regulations in their state Capitols haven’t experienced the problems Democrats fear.

For example, Kentucky allows permitted concealed carry in Legislative areas, including the Capitol. You must carry your gun openly if you attend a legislative meeting, though no permit is required.
---
In Texas, any concealed handgun permit holder can carry in the Capitol. Registered permit holders get to skip the metal detector, since they have already passed a criminal background check. After a while, lobbyists and journalists figured this out and got their own permits.

No one has been killed or injured by a gun legally brought into Capitol buildings.

Not surprising. You can't carry at the bank I use, or the post office, or court houses, county, criminal, or Federal. I lock in console when I have business taking me to places that ban. Except for my bank (very long relationship), I won't shop or do business with private companies that deny carry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To shoehorn some reality into your thick skull.

He wants to legally carry a gun? It's none of your business. I guarantee you meet people everyday who are carrying, and you don't even know it.

Immaterial. I axed him what his reasoning is. I didn't ask him what was "legal" or whose "business" it is, the latter point being deliciously ironic since the post wasn't even addressed to you in the first place, which means it's even less your business than it is mine.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

You're not nearly as clever as you believe.

You want to know why he carries. I correctly pointed out it's none of your concern.

And then, predictably, you throw another little bitch fit.

Once again Gunnar, I ain't the one whining and screaming about what two other posters are saying to each other soooooo......

Yes you are whining because I don't need a reason to carry.

You need a reason for doing anything. That reason is why you do it.
This is kind of simple stuff.

Do you have rights or reasons?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you're being dishonest, too. You asked him what his reason was. Then you backtracked and said you asked him what his reasoning is.

You simply can't be honest.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to expand on why you think -- sorry, wrong word -- feel you're entitled to know his reason for carrying, I'm all ears.

This is Pogo that you're addressing. To say that he is dishonest is redundant. That he dishonest is included in identifying him as Pogo.

even that gif in his signature is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Nape. It's directly from the video.

Interesting that it makes you wet your pants though. Thanks for that, it lets me know it's effective.

ok time for you to show her shacking his hand if it's directly from the video.

 

[Pogo]

Search Results | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay. Which one?

Is it your intent to claim that there is any example among those at that link, which is not dishonest? Seriously?

View attachment 299928

Sooooooooo I asked "which one" and you don't have an answer. What a surprise.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sooooooooo I asked "which one" and you don't have an answer. What a surprise.

Can you point to any that are not dishonest? even one?

 

[Pogo]

Sooooooooo I asked "which one" and you don't have an answer. What a surprise.

Can you point to any that are not dishonest? even one?

It's not my assertion, is it dimweed.

YOURS is the burden of proof here. Go ahead, find me one that's dishonest. So many choices.

Wassamatta? Still can't do it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not my assertion, is it dimweed.

YOURS is the burden of proof here. Go ahead, find me one that's dishonest. So many choices.

Wassamatta? Still can't do it?

I found over a hundred thousand posts of yours, that are dishonest, and I provided a link to them. Anyone can follow this link, read any of this post for themselves, and judge for themselves if they can find any that are not dishonest.

It's difficult to imagine what more proof I can supply, or should be expected to supply.

 

[Pogo]

It's not my assertion, is it dimweed.

YOURS is the burden of proof here. Go ahead, find me one that's dishonest. So many choices.

Wassamatta? Still can't do it?

I found over a hundred thousand posts of yours, that are dishonest, and I provided a link to them. Anyone can follow this link, read any of this post for themselves, and judge for themselves if they can find any that are not dishonest.

It's difficult to imagine what more proof I can supply, or should be expected to supply.

And yet you can't quote a single one in evidence.

Of course people can judge for themselves. And no one else has cited any either. But of course "people" didn't make the assertion did they. YOU did. Now look where you are.

Squirm, worm.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And yet you can't quote a single one in evidence.

I posted a link to more than a hundred thousand instances of you being dishonest. I do not need to provide any more evidence than that. I do not need to prove anything more than that.

 

[Pogo]

And yet you can't quote a single one in evidence.

I posted a link to more than a hundred thousand instances of you being dishonest. I do not need to provide any more evidence than that. I do not need to prove anything more than that.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnape. You posted a link to a list of my posts. You have yet to show that even so much as one of them is dishonest. You have yet to even identify one for consideration.

And I can't blame you. They don't exist, so how could you.

Kind of like how could you admit you fucked up -- you can't do that either.

I'm sure it must be frustrating for you. How many posts did you scour through? Fifty? A hundred? Three hundred? All of them? Well you dug your own hole there, digger.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I posted a link to more than a hundred thousand instances of you being dishonest. I do not need to provide any more evidence than that. I do not need to prove anything more than that.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnape. You posted a link to a list of my posts. You have yet to show that even so much as one of them is dishonest. You have yet to even identify one for consideration.

And I can't blame you. They don't exist, so how could you.

Kind of like how could you admit you fucked up -- you can't do that either.

I'm sure it must be frustrating for you. How many posts did you scour through? Fifty? A hundred? Three hundred? All of them? Well you dug your own hole there, digger.

OK, I'll admit this much. I'm not going to read over a hundred thousand posts, just to make sure that among them, there aren't one or two that might actually be honest. If you want to find one or two that you claim are not dishonest, go ahead, and you can prove me wrong in claiming that they are •ALL• dishonest; and I'll have to step back and claim only that the overwhelming vast majority of them are dishonest, which is certainly something that anyone who follows this link can observe and see for himself, who finds it worth the trouble. If there are any posts of yours in which you're not being blatantly dishonest, they sure are not easy to find.

As it is, I have already wasted far more time and attention arguing with you than you are anywhere close to being worth. If I had any sense, I'd not waste another moment on you. There are plenty of other lusers on this forum who, while as dishonest as you are, are at least a lot more entertaining. You're about the most boring sort of liar that there is to be found.

 

[Circe]

VA is going to swing red so hard in the next election cycle that the democrats ears will be ringing for years

I sure hope so. If the leftists get away with this gun grab in Virginia I think it could be the issue that splits the country. Like Abolition was in 1859.

 

[WEATHER53]

I just don’t think you can say that the conglomerate of people vacates the individuals right. That’s presumption and actually insulting to each individual.
You could have a 50,000 knitting convention and would the needles be banned?

 

[Pogo]

I posted a link to more than a hundred thousand instances of you being dishonest. I do not need to provide any more evidence than that. I do not need to prove anything more than that.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnape. You posted a link to a list of my posts. You have yet to show that even so much as one of them is dishonest. You have yet to even identify one for consideration.

And I can't blame you. They don't exist, so how could you.

Kind of like how could you admit you fucked up -- you can't do that either.

I'm sure it must be frustrating for you. How many posts did you scour through? Fifty? A hundred? Three hundred? All of them? Well you dug your own hole there, digger.

OK, I'll admit this much. I'm not going to read over a hundred thousand posts, just to make sure that among them, there aren't one or two that might actually be honest. If you want to find one or two that you claim are not dishonest, go ahead, and you can prove me wrong in claiming that they are •ALL• dishonest; and I'll have to step back and claim only that the overwhelming vast majority of them are dishonest, which is certainly something that anyone who follows this link can observe and see for himself, who finds it worth the trouble. If there are any posts of yours in which you're not being blatantly dishonest, they sure are not easy to find.

EARTH TO FUCKING DUMBASS:

*I* NEVER SAT HERE CLAIMING I HAVE POSTS THAT ARE NOT DISHONEST. *****YOU***** SAT HERE CLAIMING THEY WERE. That's ***YOUR*** burden of proof Gummo, NOT MINE. GET IT?? And you can't find a single one.

As it is, I have already wasted far more time and attention arguing with you than you are anywhere close to being worth. If I had any sense, I'd not waste another moment on you. There are plenty of other lusers on this forum who, while as dishonest as you are, are at least a lot more entertaining. You're about the most boring sort of liar that there is to be found.

Translation --- you came to the realization that you CAN'T make your case, don't have the STONES to admit you fucked up, and now want to shirk all responsibility for what YOU YOURSELF posted.

FUCK outta here. Go drown in a toilet, you spineless WIMP.

 

[daveman]

Ooooh. SOMEbody's angry.

 

[skye]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ooooh. SOMEbody's angry.

Liars don't like being caught.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

VA is going to swing red so hard in the next election cycle that the democrats ears will be ringing for years

I sure hope so. If the leftists get away with this gun grab in Virginia I think it could be the issue that splits the country. Like Abolition was in 1859.

Virginia limits their governors to one term. Hopefully the People wake up and throw all Democrats out of office over this, but that state is Swamp Central so who knows if it's possible