Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[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?

Yes...they do.....it you think they don't you are really stupid.

So I should ignore what they say about themselves and listen to you say about them instead? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

Maybe you should be in the conspiracy room?

the problem is 2 fold - at least.

1. they keep saying they're not coming after private citizens guns
2. they propose laws that do just that in banning ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS.

it's a huge contradiction that means gun owners do not trust the motives of the left. the left using emotional ITS FOR THE CHILDREN strategies doesn't help their cause.

when they propose a law that makes someone who owns a simple .22 rifle a criminal, they're taking it too far and earning the distrust you're trying to dismiss.

 

[iceberg]

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.

well since you have no regard for their rights, this is what they do. in effect, you're being the very person you hate.

that would explain quite a bit actually.

They are the ones who have no regard for anyone else's rights.

I grew up in NJ with guns in the house. We shot them. Rifle, pistols. But this did not extend to weapons of war, and everyone was responsible and respectful of their neighbors. Now we are facing people who not only want to own war weapons, but also make statements that indicate aggression toward their fellow citizens and that raise the specter of vigilantism and attacks on Americans who are not like them, and we have modern history of the misuse of these weapons that has resulted in mass casualties of innocent people.

I am reminded of that awful video a few years ago of some rogue police chief in Pennsylvania shooting a rapid-fire weapon into the air while screaming something about "they!" "they!" Who did he mean by "they"? What "they" would attack the middle of Pennsylvania? Canadians? North Koreans?

the problem is you define (or are trying to it would seem) the AR15 as a "weapon of war".

what characteristics does the AR15 have to make it as such that won't apply to the 22 rifle?

let me know and good luck with that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

well since you have no regard for their rights, this is what they do. in effect, you're being the very person you hate.

that would explain quite a bit actually.

They are the ones who have no regard for anyone else's rights.

I grew up in NJ with guns in the house. We shot them. Rifle, pistols. But this did not extend to weapons of war, and everyone was responsible and respectful of their neighbors. Now we are facing people who not only want to own war weapons, but also make statements that indicate aggression toward their fellow citizens and that raise the specter of vigilantism and attacks on Americans who are not like them, and we have modern history of the misuse of these weapons that has resulted in mass casualties of innocent people.

I am reminded of that awful video a few years ago of some rogue police chief in Pennsylvania shooting a rapid-fire weapon into the air while screaming something about "they!" "they!" Who did he mean by "they"? What "they" would attack the middle of Pennsylvania? Canadians? North Koreans?

The bolt action, deer hunting rifle is an actual weapon of war in use by all Branches of the U.S. military as a sniper rifle.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun is in current use by the U.S. military in all Branches.

The AR-15 is not used by any branch of the U.S. military.....

You don't know what you are talking about....

Correct.

The firearm is a weapon of war. It was created in China for war. It has been adapted and technologically advanced FOR THE PURPOSE OF WAR.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal firearm. They are ALL lethal, by design. They are all weapons of war.

.

 

[Norman]

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?

Yes...they do.....it you think they don't you are really stupid.

So I should ignore what they say about themselves and listen to you say about them instead? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

Maybe you should be in the conspiracy room?

the problem is 2 fold - at least.

1. they keep saying they're not coming after private citizens guns
2. they propose laws that do just that in banning ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS.

it's a huge contradiction that means gun owners do not trust the motives of the left. the left using emotional ITS FOR THE CHILDREN strategies doesn't help their cause.

when they propose a law that makes someone who owns a simple .22 rifle a criminal, they're taking it too far and earning the distrust you're trying to dismiss.

Democrats always, ALWAYS lie. Why are you listening to them?

This will be difficult to fix now that idiots went on and believed when they told us immigrants are just as American as Americans. Turns out, they are not, and vote in people who hate guns and all other American values and rights, which can be readily taken after the guns are gone.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

There is a distinction between a writing having legal authority and one having legislative effect. It is true that the DOI is not a law, but it ABSOLUTELY has legal authority. It illustrates legislative intent and the purpose/goal of the founding of our current government.

A law? No. Legal Authority? Absolutely!!!

.

 

[iceberg]

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

There is a distinction between a writing having legal authority and one having legislative effect. It is true that the DOI is not a law, but it ABSOLUTELY has legal authority. It illustrates legislative intent and the purpose/goal of the founding of our current government.

A law? No. Legal Authority? Absolutely!!!

.

he misses the sheer fact that the only reason ANY of this has "legal authority" is because we created the processes and procedures in which to create, administer and defend them.

 

[alang1216]

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.

“No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.”

why doesn’t it seem he’s not talking about Federal law?

Mr. Iceberg was imagining a scenario that clearly violated the Constitution. I was agreeing with you, and my suggestion was NOT ABOUT Federal law.

 

[iceberg]

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.

“No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.”

why doesn’t it seem he’s not talking about Federal law?

Mr. Iceberg was imagining a scenario that clearly violated the Constitution. I was agreeing with you, and my suggestion was NOT ABOUT Federal law.

not imagining anything. trying to define what you were saying so i didn't assume.

would have hoped that registered with you.

 

[alang1216]

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.

“No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.”

why doesn’t it seem he’s not talking about Federal law?

Mr. Iceberg was imagining a scenario that clearly violated the Constitution. I was agreeing with you, and my suggestion was NOT ABOUT Federal law.

not imagining anything. trying to define what you were saying so i didn't assume.

would have hoped that registered with you.

Hopefully you now understand my compromise proposal.

 

[iceberg]

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.

“No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.”

why doesn’t it seem he’s not talking about Federal law?

Mr. Iceberg was imagining a scenario that clearly violated the Constitution. I was agreeing with you, and my suggestion was NOT ABOUT Federal law.

not imagining anything. trying to define what you were saying so i didn't assume.

would have hoped that registered with you.

Hopefully you now understand my compromise proposal.

kinda a "every county for themselves after federal laws are followed" and i just don't see that working.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

They surely understand it well enough; they are just not willing to obey it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

To keep repeating that, you're either ignorant and delusional, or else you're just flat-out lying. Probably both.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

By definition, one does not need permission from government to exercise a right. Permits are for government, controlled privileges, not for rights that rightfully belong to the people.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege; it affirm a right. Government has no legitimate authority whatsoever, to demand that anyone obtain its permission to exercise a right.

 

[Lysistrata]

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

They surely understand it well enough; they are just not willing to obey it.

Are you including republican lawmakers?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

This ought to be wrong, in this application. Defending the country against foreign invasion is a specific duty and purpose of the military. The Posse Comitatus Act would apply to the use of the military against American citizens, no matter how serious a crime they may be accused of committing, but using the military against foreign nationals who are illegally invading this nation is entirely within its legitimate purpose.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The US Constitution was written so all could understand not so the political elite could create laws for us and different ones for them. You're full of shit to think otherwise

It was written so that someone of normal intelligence and literacy could understand it. Obviously, I think, there is some minimal level of literacy and intelligence required to understand it, below which such understanding should not be expected.

I think it's clear what Lysistrata's issue is, here.

 

[alang1216]

By definition, one does not need permission from government to exercise a right. Permits are for government, controlled privileges, not for rights that rightfully belong to the people.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege; it affirm a right. Government has no legitimate authority whatsoever, to demand that anyone obtain its permission to exercise a right.

I'm not sure where your JD is from but you should go to DC with 100,000 of your closest friends and try and exercise your right of assembly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 need common sense Voter ID laws too

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By definition, one does not need permission from government to exercise a right. Permits are for government, controlled privileges, not for rights that rightfully belong to the people.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege; it affirm a right. Government has no legitimate authority whatsoever, to demand that anyone obtain its permission to exercise a right.

I'm not sure where your JD is from but you should go to DC with 100,000 of your closest friends and try and exercise your right of assembly.

Permits are a grant of permission to do something you do not already have permission to do.

Licenses act the same way. They grant a contractual relationship to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Rights require neither permission nor contractual obligation to exercise.

Is that clear to you?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 need common sense Voter ID laws too

Common sense "common sense" poll tests are also very important to be sure that we don't have idiots voting in bad law makers. We need a voting license.

.